THE 



QUESTION -BOX 
ANSWERS. 



REPLIES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED ON 
MISSIONS TO NON-CATHOLICS. 

BY 

REV. BERTRAND L. CONWAY, 

OF THE PAULIST FATHERS. 
WITH A PREFACE BY CARDINAL GIBBONS. 

3S>5rtli Thousand. 

THE COIvUMBUS PRESS, 




120 West 6oth Street. 
New York. 



fUbtt obstat x 

REMIGIUS LAFORT, S.T L. 

Censor Depntatus. 



Imprimatur : 

JOANNES M. FARLEY, 

Archiep. Neo Ebor. 

February, fpoj t 



Copyright, 1903, by "The Missionary Society of 
St. Paui, the Apostle in the State 
of New York." 



Printed at the Columbus Press, 120 West 6oth St. 
By Transfer 
Maritime Comm. 

SEP 3 1940 



3 
\ 

PREFACE. 



The Apostolate to the Non- Catholics of 
our country, so dear to the heart of Father 
Hecker, has proved itself a movement 
blessed by. God in the thousands of con- 
verts it has won to the true Church. With- 
in the past ten years it has been success- 
fully inaugurated by the regular and secu- 
lar clergy in over sixty dioceses of the 
United States, and its future is assured be- 
cause of the special commendation of Pope 
Leo XIII. and the American Hierarchy. 

Although no man can blind himself to the 
fact that we are living in a period of wide- 
spread indifferentism and unbelief, still the 
hearty welcome given to the Faulist Fathers 
everywhere in the missions to non-Catho- 
lics goes to evidence the intense longing 
of thousands of earnest souls for the truth 
of God. The many outside the fold are 
like travellers lost in a forest at night, per- 
plexed, worried, anxious, on the alert for a 



iv 



Preface. 



divine guide to lead them out of the labyrinth 
of their doubting. What better field for the 
Church than in this our beloved country, 
where the multitudes require but the kindly 
presentation of the Church's claims, and the 
heartful prayers of the Catholic people, to 
answer God's call to believe ? 

The Question Box is the most interesting 
feature of these missions to non-Catholics. 
At the door of the church a box is placed, 
and into it non-Catholics are cordially in- 
vited to deposit their difficulties and objec- 
tions. These are answered the following 
evening. In this way the lecturer learns the 
mental troubles of his particular audience, 
and his fair, kindly answering interests the 
most listless and disarms the most prejudiced, 
The Agnostic finds his doubts vanish ; the 
Protestant his prejudices disappear; and the 
Catholic his faith strengthened. Frequently 
the unlearning of one lie, or the answering 
of one difficulty, removes the veil that hid 
the beauty of the Church from some good 
soul, and he becomes " obedient to the 
heavenly vision. " 



Preface. 



v 



This book answers in a brief and popular 
manner the most important questions actually 
received by the author during the past five 
years of missionary activity in all parts of 
the United States from Boston to Denver. 
Its object is to interest fair-minded inquirers 
in the further study of the Church's claims, 
by removing many of their false notions re- 
garding her. We hope that many of the 
clean of heart approaching this study in the 
humble, docile spirit of the child, and asking 
not " How can these things be ?" but simply 
" Has God revealed these truths ?" will find 
their prayer for light answered by the Holy 
Spirit of Truth. May He guide them back 
to the fold of the one True Shepherd ! 



Feast of the Conversion of St, Paul, 
Baltimore. 





B draper for %\Q\)t 

(To be said by those seeking the truth.) 

Holy Spirit of God, take me as 
Thy disciple : guide me, illuminate me, 
sanctify me. Bind my hands, that 
they may do no evil ; cover my eyes, 
that they may see it no more ; sanctify 
my heart, that evil may not dwell 
within me. Be thou my God ; be Thou 
my guide. Whithersoever Thou lead- 
est me I will go; whatsoever Thou 
forbiddest me I will renounce ; and 
whatsoever Thou commandest me in 
Thy strength I will do. Lead me, 
then, unto the fulness of Thy truth. 
Amen. 



THE QUESTION BOX. 



THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

How do you prove to a certainty the existence 
of God ? Cannot a man be moral without belief 
in God? Is not virtue its own reward? 

The most common proof, and perhaps the 
oldest argument, is the argument from design 
("The heavens show forth the glory of God s 
and the firmament declafeth the work of His 
hands," — Ps. xviii. i) ; namely, that the har- 
mony and order of the universe point to an 
Intelligent and Infinite Designer, God. The 
chronometer with every particle of its mechan- 
ism moving in such perfect harmony as to de- 
clare the time of day to a second ; the automatic 
machines in our large factories, which do the 
work of thousands of men silently from morning 
until night under the influence of steam or 
electricity, evidence a skilled human intelli- 
gence that designed them. So likewise this 
vast universe of ours, with its thousands of 
complex, interlacing laws, all manifesting a 
wondrous intelligent adaptation of means to 
ends, points to a Supreme Intelligence that de* 
signed them all. 



r 

2 



The Question Box. 



The heavens with its myriads of stars revolv- 
ing through space without the slightest inter- 
ference one with the other ; this earth with its 
quick rush through spac % of which we are 
unconscious ; the constant succession of the sea- 
sons, the beauty of the structure of the tiniest 
fern, the laws of instinct in the brute creation, 
the special adaptation of the various organs and 
senses of the human body, all declare an Intel- 
ligent Lawmaker by whose wisdom all has 
been established. 

Scientific men have in our day of unbelief 
endeavored to destroy the force of this ar- 
gument; but their attempt has failed, for 
science is merely furnishing new data for its 
defence. Says Professor Huxley ("Evolution 
and Ethics," page 58, Appleton, 1894) : "If 
the belief in a God is essential to morality, 
physical science has no more to say against the 
probability of that doctrine than the most ordi- 
nary experience has. And it effectually closes 
the mouths of those who pretend to refute it by 
objections drawn from merely physical data." 

Some have said that this harmony \3 due to 
mere physical causes, and that matter must 
necessarily obey the laws of nature. But who 
but God established these laws? To say that 
nature did, is to make nature intelligent, or to 
call God by another name. Again, with some 
the theory of evolution has in some way weak- 



T&e Existence of God, 



ened the force of this argument. And yet, as 
Romanes declared {Nineteenth Ce?ihiry y June, 
1888), all that evolution has accomplished "is 
to throw back the question of design from the 
facts immediately observed to the causes subse- 
quently discovered. And there the question 
must be left by science, to be taken up by 
philosophy.* 9 As the evidence of design points 
to a Designer, so evolution points to an Intelli- 
gence who is the origin of the universal law of 
progress. 

Again, the fact that all nations, civilized and 
barbarian alike, have believed in the existence 
of a Supreme Being admits of but one explana^ 
tion, viz., that the human mind, by the princL 
pie of causality, can prove that God does exist, 
So plain is this that the Psalmist and the Apos- 
tie do not hesitate to call those who deny this 
truth inexcusable and foolish (Ps. lii. 1 ; Rom. 
i. 20-23), and the Catholic Church voices their 
teaching in the Vatican Council (Const. Dei 
Filius, ch. xi.) , "declaring that God, the begin- 
ning and end of all things, may be known with 
certainty by the natural light of human reason, 
by means of created things.' ' (Fox, " Religion 
and Morality, " Part I., ch. ii ; Tylor, "Prim- 
itive Culture"; Quatrefages, "The Human 
Species' 9 ; Lang, " The Making of Religion. ") 

One of the strongest and most convincing 
proofs, however, is the moral argument, In 



The Question Box, 



every man, no matter how low he may be in 
the scale of civilization, there is a conviction of 
the essential difference between good and evil, 
and the obligation to do good and avoid evil. 
No matter how much men may differ as to 
what is right and what is wrong, all feel that in 
doing evil (as murder, adultery, theft, calum- 
ny) they are going directly against an inward 
monitor called conscience, which voices the 
commands of the eternal moral order, and 
speaks in the name of a Supreme Moral Law- 
giver, God, 

Men have obeyed this law although it meant 
the denial of self, and went counter to all their 
inclinations and desires, for it carried with it 
the sanction of reward and punishment here- 
after. The literature, law, and institutions of 
all peoples are based on the existence of this 
moral order, which points clearly to an Eternal 
Lawgiver who is the origin and foundation 
thereof. 

The unbelievers of our day have attempted 
In vain to frame theories of morality indepen- 
dent of religion. Is utility to be the basis of 
morality ? Then all those who are a burden to 
the state, the sick, the aged, the convicts, 
should not be allowed to live. Is happiness the 
basis of morality? Then marital infidelity is 
moral, when both husband and wife agree to be 
"jufaithfol. Is virtue its own reward ? Experi- 



The Existence of God. 



5 



ence proves that often virtue walks in rags and 
poverty, while vice drives by in a coach and 
four. Is the benefit to posterity sufficient? 
Not one man in a million would be influenced 
by that motive. 

No, the only basis of morality is the exist- 
ence of God, the great Lawgiver, who has 
written His law on the heart of man (Rom. ii. 
15), and given him the light of reason to find 
out the rest of the moral law that He has re* 
vealed. " Morality, " writes Iyiddon ("Some 
Elements of Religion, " p. 18), "severed from 
religious motive, is like a branch cut from a 
tree ; it may here and there, from accidental 
causes, retain its greenness for awhile, but its 
chance of vigorous life is a very slender one. 
Nor is it possible to popularize a real morality, 
a morality that shall deal with motives as well 
as with acts, without unveiling to the e}^e of 
the soul something more personal than an ab- 
stract law." (Fox, " Religion and Morality " ; 
Ward, " Witnesses to theUnseen ,, ; Newman," 
" Grammar of Assent," ch. v.; Schanz, " Apol- 
ogy," vol. i.; Card. Gibbons, "Our Christian 
Heritage," chaps, i , ii., iii . ; Ronayne, " God, 
Knowable and Known " ; Driscoll, " God.") 

Do not some travellers declare that there are 
tribes without any belief in God? 

Many indeed have so declared (I/Ubbock^ 



6 



The Question Box. 



" Origin of Civilization "), only to be corrected 
by later and more exact investigators, who 
have shown that the mistake arose from a too 
superficial study of the religion in question, an 
ignorance of the peculiar idioms of a language, 
a false inference whereby tribes with false and 
crude notions of the Deity were thought abso- 
lutely to deny His existence. (Flint, " Anti- 
theistic Theories," p. 525; Tylor, " Primitive 
Culture," vol. i. ch. xi.; De Harlez, " World's 
Parliament of Religions," vol. ii. p. 613.) 

Is not conscience a sufficient guide for a man, 
without his believing in God ? I know many un- 
believers who live better lives than some Chris- 
tians. 

No ; for conscience, although it is reason 
telling us in a particalar instance the good 
to be done and the evil to be avoided, would 
be powerless to command men unless it voiced 
the eternal law and spoke with the authority 
of God. If we were to divorce religion from 
morality, and allow reason, subject as it is 
to public opinion, caprice, passion, prejudice, 
to speak in its own name, the whole basis and 
sanction of the moral order would at once dis- 
appear, and the essential distinction between 
right and wrong would soon be lost. 

Concerning the good lives of unbelievers, 
Balfour writes : 1 ! Biologists tell us of para- 



Divine Providence. 



7 



sites which live, and can only live, within 
the bodies of animals more highly organized 
than they. . . . So it is with those per- 
sons who claim to show, by their example, 
that naturalism is practically consistent with 
the maintenance of ethical ideals with which 
naturalism has no natural affinity. Their spir- 
itual life is parasitic ; it is sheltered by con- 
victions which belong, not to them but to 
the society of which they form a part ; it is 
nourished by processes in which they take no 
share. And when those convictions deca3 r , and 
those processes come to an end, the alien life 
which they have maintained can scarce be ex- 
pected to outlast them ' ' ( ' 1 Foundations of Be- 
lief," pp. 82, 83). , 



DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 

How is it that a good and just God allows the 
wicked to prosper in the world, while the good 
are afflicted with every misery ? > 

As a matter of fact prosperity is by no means 
the special prerogative of the wicked, and 
misery the universal lot of the good. Many 
good souls are gifted by God with health, 
wealth, social position, and other blessings, 
while the wicked frequently receive their pun- 
ishment in this life in the form of remorse, 



8 



The Question Box, 



poverty, disease, disgrace, imprisonment, and 
death. 

We must also not forget that in tlie midst of 
great adversity the virtuous poor frequently 
possess a happy home, true friends, the con- 
solations of religion, and the joy of a good 
conscience, which more than compensate for 
their lack of worldly goods. 

Granted, however, that in many an instance 
the wicked prosper and the good are afflicted. 
That does not prove God unjust or evil, but 
proves rather the existence of an after life, 
where an infinitely just God will right all the 
injustice of this. This life is a time of trial, 
during which man must prove himself worthy 
of eternal happiness. The reward comes only 
after our work is done, — at the hour of death. 
The sufferings, therefore, of the good in thij 
life ought to be regarded as part of the pun- 
ishment due to their sins and as a chance of 
merit, while the prosperity of the wicked ought 
to be looked upon as the reward here for the 
good they have wrought. "Woe to j t ou that 
are rich, for you have your consolation " (L,uke 
vi. 24). " For I reckon that the sufferings of 
this time are not worthy to be compared with 
the glory to come" (Rom. viii. 18). 



Moral and Physical EviL 



9 



MORAL AND PHYSICAL EVIL. 

If God is infinitely good, why does so much evil 
exist in the world ? Why does not God, who is 
all powerful^ destroy evil? Christians must 
choose between either horn of this dilemma : if 
God cannot prevent evil, He is not omnipotent. 
If God will not, He is not infinitely good^ 

The difficulty of reconciling the existence of 
evil with the providence of God lias been felt 
from the beginning. Christianity does not pre- 
tend to answer the problem fully, but declares 
it the height of foil)' for men to deny the many 
and overwhelming proofs that reason gives us 
of God's infinite goodness and love, simply 
because in our ignorance we cannot explain 
the complete working out of the divine plan. 

The Christian is not disconcerted by the ex- 
istence of physical evils, for he knows they are 
the consequence of original sin. ) If Adam had 
been faithful, the race would have been free 
therefrom. The Christian realizes also that 
much of the poverty, sickness, and misery in 
the world is directly traceable to the actual sins 
of men. Is it reasonable to blame God for 
the poverty of the tenement-house dweller, 
when often we know that it is due to the 
drunkenness and improvidence of an unworthy 
father of a family ? Is it reasonable to blame 
God for the diseased children who are the fruit 



to 



The Question Box. 



of immoral parents ? God, indeed, could, in 
His omnipotence, prevent nature's laws from 
acting in these cases; but no one can prove 
that He is bound to perform a miracle. 

The Christian, again, knows that physical 
evil is often in reality a positive favor and 
blessing of God to the individual, and always^ 
though we in our ignorance may not perceive 
it, has some good purpose in God's universal 
plan. That frequently a bed of pain has 
brought a great sinner back after many years 
to his God, the priest who works among the 
people can testify. How often the loss of 
worldly goods has stripped a man of his pride, 
avarice, and lust, because he began for the first 
time to realize the uncertainty of material pros- 
perity and the fact of his utter dependence 
on God. God can bring good out of evil, as 
we see in the case of Joseph in the Old Law, 
or in the great mystery of the redemption — the 
death of Jesus Christ at the hands of those 
He came to save. Even if we at times cannot 
see the good, our reason tells us it must be 
there. 

But the innocent suffer so much ! Granted, 
but again Christianity teaches that this life is 
not the all ; that physical evils give us a chance 
to acquire the virtues of humility and patience, 
to satisfy in union with Christ for our sins, 
and. to merit through Christ for God's king- 



Moral and Physical EviL 



II 



dom. They are a constant reminder that " we 
have not here a lasting city, but we seek one 
that is to come ,J (Heb. xiii. 14); " for that 
which is at present momentary and light of 
our tribulation, worketh for us above meas- 
ure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory 99 
(II. Cor. iv. 17). 

With regard to moral evil, the Catholic 
Church teaches that God in no way wills sin. 
On the contrary every page of Scripture wit- 
nesses how greatly He detests it, and how 
severely He punishes it. Any sect which 
made God the author of evil, was by the very 
fact stamped as an irrational and immoral 
parody of Christianity. 

Does God cease to be infinitely good because 
the creatures He made with free will to obey 
His law, and endowed with the grace necessary 
to fulfil their destiny, refuse knowingly and de« 
liberately to observe that law, and reject God's 
proffered help ? God is perfect justice, and 
will take into account every possible factor 
that might palliate the sins of men, such as 
the example of wicked parents, birth in the 
slums, inherited tendencies of evil, lack of re- 
ligious education, temperament, and the like; 
but the worst of men realizes that he is free 
to do the right and avoid the wrong. Can he 
rightly blame God, if he freely choose evil 
with its consequences here and hereafter? 



12 



The Question Box, 



Why, then, did God make us free ? is the 
further objection of the unbeliever. We grant 
that God could have created a world free 
from all evil; that He could by constant 
miracle have preserved man from all sin with- 
out interfering with His free will. But as a 
matter of fact He has not done so, and no one 
can say that He was bound so to do. 

He made us free because He wished to be 
freely served by His creatures \ because He 
knew He could restore the disturbed moral 
order by the sanction of His eternal punish- 
ment of the sinner; because He knew how to 
druw good out of evil. 

We must in the last analysis, therefore, say 
that the existence of moral evil is a great mys- 
tery, but that its existence is in no way refer- 
able to God, but to the sins of our first parents 
and the actual sins of men. The great remedy 
of evil is Jesus Christ's atonement on the cross 
and the grace of God which comes therefrom, 
especially in the Mass and the Sacraments es- 
tablished by the Saviour. 

Take, if you dare, the alternative : There 
is no God. Does that do away with the fact 
of moral evil ? Or the alternative : God is in- 
finitely bad. Does the addition of such bad- 
ness to the sum of moral evil help the case? 
{American Catholic Quarterly , 1889, p. 140). 



The Immortality of the Soul. 



n 



THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

How do you prove that the soul is immortal ? 
May not the soul perish with the body, and death 
end all ? 

Independently even of the clear witness of 
revelation in both the Old Testament and the 
New, reason plainly postulates the immortality 
of the soul. 

(1) Everywhere and at all times have men 
believed firmly in an after life. No matter 
what false and superstitious notions might pre- 
vail among savage tribes, or what philosophical 
doctrines might be held by the more cultured^ 
the respect shown for the bodies of the dead, 
the religious rites and practices connected with 
their burial, the conviction of a reward or 
punishment hereafter for good and evil done 
in this life, all clearly point to a universal be* 
lief in immortality, planted in man's reason by 
God, who made us for Himself. 

(2) Many, like Rousseau, have considered the 
evident inequality and injustice of this life one 
of the stiongest proofs of a life to come. The 
virtuous and innocent poor often suffer greatly 5 
while the dishonest and unjust rich travel 
about in luxury and comfort. Suffering, sor° 
row, disease, poverty, are by no means appor- 
tioned according to a man's guilt or innocence. 



The Question Box. 



Life, therefore, is a meaningless, insoluble prob« 
lem, and pessimism the only philosophy, unless 
we postulate a future life, in which- an infinitely 
just God will make good the injustice and in- 
equality of this, rendering just judgment to 
ever3' man according to his works. 

(3) Again, the great craving of man's in- 
tellect for truth, and his intense longing for 
happiness, both of which are never satisfied in 
this life, point to God, the Eternal Truth, 
Goodness, and Beauty, who can alone make 
man perfectly happy hereafter. Man may fol- 
low after riches, pleasures, place, science ; he 
may seek and attain a certain amount of knowl- 
edge and happiness here ; but the sense of life's 
incompleteness and its vanity soon dawn upon 
him, and he realizes the word of St. Augustine : 
" Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and 
our hearts are not at rest until they rest in 
Thee." 

(4) Conscience, by its commandment to do 
the right and avoid the wrong, and its reward 
of peace for good done and its punishment of 
remorse for evil, points clearly to God, who in 
the life to come will eternally reward the good 
and punish the wicked. 

Indeed, if there be no future life, why should 
an intelligent man give heed to the dictate of 
conscience when it warns or threatens? What 
difference would there be between right and 



The Immortality of the Soul. 15 



wrong ? Why worry about the law, if there 
will be no punishment for the law-breaker ? If 
this life is all, why preach patience to the poor, 
justice to the rich, purity to the sensual, 
humility to the proud? No wonder that an* 
archy to-day seeks to gain its end by murder ; 
it is the logical outcome of unbelief in the 
soul's immortality. 

(5) The soul does not perish with the body, 
because it is not a material, but a simple, spir- 
itual substance, containing in itself no ele- 
ment of destruction or disintegration. Although 
united to the body, the soul's life is inde- 
pendent of the body, and is not subject to the 
laws that govern matter. Any text book of 
philosophy may be consulted on this argument. 
(Cf. Maher's " Psychology," Stonyhurst series; 
] 3 S. Vaughan, "Immortality of the Sour'; 
Driscoll, "The Soul," ch. xi. ; American 
Catholic Quarterly y 1877, pp. 123, 347). 

Why was any revelation needed? Could not 
man get along by his own unaided reason ? 

A study of the nations before the coming of 
the Saviour will show the failure of the unaided 
reason to tell man of his duties toward self, his 
neighbor, and God. We find the prophets 
Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Nahum protesting 
against the impure rites of Moloch and Baal. 
The blood of human sacrifice flowed in Phce- 



16 



The Question Box, 



nicia, Tyre, Chanaan, Carthage, Athens, and 
Rome. The worship of idols was carried on 
with the most impure orgies, as we may read 
on nearly every page of the early church 
writers. Fable and myth were the basis of 
gross idolatry, and thieving, treacherous, and 
adulterous gods were held up to the imitation 
of the people. Superstition affected all classes^ 
so that the trade of soothsayer, augur, and 
magician was actually a sacred priesthood. 
Scepticism reigned among the cultured and the 
philosophers, who still kept up the public wor- 
ship in the temples the better to control the 
people. Even Plato recommend 3 the exposure 
to death of weakly children, advocates com- 
munity of wives, upholds slavery, and tolerates 
the worst forms of immorality. Cicero tells ug 
that nothing was toe absurd for a philosopher's 
creed, and that, together with their ignorance, 
uncertainty, and contradictions on the most 
elemental questions of reason— i. e. y the exist- 
ence and nature of God, the immortality of the 
soul, etc. — they led lives of the greatest immo° 
rality. In our own day the same holds goodc 
Reason alone cannot teach men, for the modem 
pantheistic philosopher in one moment exalts 
man to the divinity, while in the next the 
materialist places him on a level with the 
brute beast. 

1 At the time of Christ the world felt the need 



The Necessily of Revelation, 17 



of a teacher who could teach with authority 
the truths of God to all men. Without divine 
revelation the truths of dogma and morals could 
never be known fully, and indeed some of them 
would have remained a puzzle and an enigma 
until the end. Men had to be taught by God 
His truth, His commandments, His pun wor- 
ship, the malice of sin, the need of atonement 
and of pardon, the means of reaching the God 
who made us, the salvation of God in Christ 
Jesus. 

Christ was the answer of the world's longing 
for a divine, infallible teacher of God's truth. 
His Church is the continuation of that divine, 
infallible teaching until the second coming of 
the Christ. (Hettinger (Bowden), "Revealed 
Religion," ch. ii.; Schanz, " A Christian Apol- 
ogy, " vol. ii. ch. viii.; Gibbons s "Our Chris- 
tian Heritage," passim.) 

Is not religion a question of education and 
environment rather than of intellectual con- 
viction ? 

I readily grant that many are Catholics, 
Protestants, or unbelievers because their parents 
were so before them, or because of their early 
education. But the Catholic Church teaches 
that faith is an act of the intellect based on 
rational motives of credibility that will stand 
any *est, needing only a good will on the part 



18 The Question Box, 

of the individual, and the grace of God, which 
is never refused to those who ask it, to enable a 
man to counteract the false teachings of his 
education or environment. The nature of faith 
can be seen from its official definition at the 
Vatican Council, Sess. III. ch. iii. : " Seeing 
that man wholly depends upon God as his 
Creator and Lord, and seeing that created rea- 
son is entirely subject to the uncreated truth, 
we are bound to submit by faith our intellect 
and will to God the Revealer. But this faith, 
which is the beginning of man's salvation, the 
Church confesses to be a supernatural virtue, 
whereby, with the help of God's grace, we be- 
lieve what He reveals, not because we per- 
ceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of 
our reason, but on account of the authority of 
God the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor 
be deceived.' 9 

If one's education and environment happen 
to be in accord with divine truth, so much the 
better. But if as the years roll by a man real- 
izes the poverty of the partial gospel he pos- 
sesses, or the nothingness of a despairing unbe- 
lief, he is bound in conscience and in loyalty to 
truth to search earnestly for the revelation of 
God to man. 



Revival Religion. 



Is not religion a mere question of feeling or 
emotion ? I have noticed at revivals that the 
amount of religion seemed to be in proportion 
to the excitement caused. 

Not at all. You must not judge Christianity 
by the excesses of those who have lost the pure 
gospel. The Catholic Church protests most 
strongly against a religion of mere subjective 
feeling, which at revival meetings, under stress 
of great nervous excitement, makes the emo- 
tions take the place of rational conviction. 
There is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant 
an absolute certainty of salvation. On the con- 
trary they declare that ' ' No man knoweth 
whether he be worthy of love or hatred ' ' (Eccles. 
ix. i), and warn us "to work out our salva- 
tion with fear and trembling'' (Phil. ii. 12). 
The Catholic Church, while cultivating rational 
religious emotion, safeguards her children 
against all emotional delusion, by declaring 
faith an act of the intellect guided by an up- 
right will, and helped by God's grace; and 
conversion possible only by a heartfelt sorrow 
for sin committed, a id confession of the same 
to the Ambassador of Christ (II. Cor. v. 20), 
with a firm promise to offend no more. A 
Catholic knows there is no danger of deception, 
because he believes in the authority of God, 
voiced to him by the living, infallible witness 
of Christ's mouthpiece, the Church of God. 



20 



The Question Box. 



INDIFFERENTISM. 

Are not all religions good ? 

Is not one religion as good as another? 

Why is it necessary to accept any creed ? WAS 
not my hereafter be secure if I live a good, hon- 
est life according to my conscience ? 

What difference does it make what religion a 
man professes, provided he lives up to it? 

Will God ask me hereafter what creed I pro* 
fessed, or rather, what kind of a life I have 
lived ? 

These questions all voice the most popular 
religion of the twentieth century : the religion 
of Indifferentism. It is practically the creed 
of nine out of ten in the outside churches to° 
day, which have almost completely lost the old- * 
time orthodoxy of the sixteenth century. It 
is the inevitable reaction from the first faise 
principle of Protestantism : the formula, " Faith 
alone without works will save," has now be- 
come, in the hands of the descendants of 
Luther, " Works alone without faith will save/ 
Men have wearied of the many dissensions of 
the sects, with their denial of one pope and 
their creating of many, and have carried the 
second principle of Protestantism, private judg- 
ment, to its logical conclusion by utterly deny- 
ing the right to be taught by any man, which 
first clothes itself under the quasi-respectable 



Indifferentism. 



21 



garb of Indifferentism prior to going the full 
way of unbelief. 

Indifferentism is the most subtle enemy of the 
true faith, much harder to combat than the 
bitter bigotry of the old-fashioned Protestant* 
The latter, once disabused of his false ideas of 
the Church and his inherited prejudices, is open 
to conviction. But the Indifferentist who de- 
clares God is indifferent to truth simply because 
he himself is so, and who boasts of a religion 
free from obligations and restraint, is hardly 
apt to consider the claims of a definite dog- 
matic religion which requires absolute faith 
and enforces its laws under penalty of damna- 
tion. 

Is it not strange, however, that the very man 
who worries night and day over some business 
difficulties, or who sacrifices health and comfort 
in his search for money, political preferment, 
the interests of science and the like, should on 
the other hand be totally indifferent to his 
eternal welfare ? How can any serious-minded 
man neglect to consider the claims of God and 
his immortal soul ? 

The assertion that * 1 one religion is as good 
as another" is evidently a self-contradiction. 
It is a first principle of reason that two contra- 
dictory statements cannot both be true. If one 
is true, the other is undoubtedly false. Either 
there are many Gods or one God ; either Jesus 



22 



The Question Box. 



Christ is the Son of God or He is not ; either 
Mohammed is a prophet or an impostor ; divorce 
is either lawful or not ; either Jesus Christ is 
present in the Blessed Sacrament or He is not, 
To declare that therefore Protestantism, Mo- 
hammedanism, Polytheism, Catholicism are 
equally true, is therefore to deny objective 
truth altogether. On this theory a man ought 
to change his religion as he changes his clothes 
— according to his environment. He ought to 
be a Catholic in Italy, a Protestant in Sweden, 
a Mohammedan in Turke3 T , a Jew in Judea, a 
Brahmin in India, and a Parsee in Persia. 

The God of Indifferentism is, moreover, not 
a God to be adored by rational men ; God is 
the essential, absolute, and eternal truth. Of 
necessity He must hate error and wickedness. 
To assert, therefore, that God does not care 
what men believe, that He is indifferent w T hether 
they believe truth or falsehood, consider good 
evil or evil good, accept His revelation or re- 
ject it at will, is nothing short of blasphemy. 
A man indifferent to truth — a liar, in other 
words — cannot have the respect of his fellows, 
A God indifferent to truth is a self-contradic- 
tion. No wonder, then, that men who form so 
low a conception of the Deity should end in 
denying Him altogether. Indifferentism is un- 
belief in disguise. 

But is not €i goodness " the one thing esseia* 



Indifferentism. 



23 



tial? Why worry about creeds, dogmas, or 
formulas of belief? Undoubtedly goodness is 
absolutely necessary ; but the Indifferentist for- 
gets that faith is a virtue essential to sal- 
vation ; thai a firm, unhesitating belief in the 
doctrines revealed by God is the very founda- 
tion-stone of supernatural goodness. A creed 
is merely the concrete expression of revealed 
truth. A good man must accept God's word, 
once he knows it; a good man must seek to 
discover w r hat God has said, once he doubts 
regarding his own religious faith. Faith is 
part of a good life ; it is the first step 011 the 
road to God's Kingdom; it is the entrance 
virtue to the supernatural life. If it were not 
necessary the Son of God could not enforce it 
upon us all under penalty of damnation, as He 
did when He said to the Apostles, "He that 
believeth not shall be condemned (damned) " 
(Mark xvi. 16). If it were a matter of option 
the Apostle could not have written, " Without 
faith it is impossible to please God" Heb. 
xi. 6). 

The Indifferentist tends to an easy, vague, 
varying sort of goodness, which reason and 
revelation both emphatically declare to be evil. 
He calls good whatever falls in with his own 
inclinations. He is not good according to the 
divine standard, which is the only kind of 
goodness that avails for salvation. 



24 The Question Box. * 

There is no record of the doctrine of In- 
differentism in the Scriptures ; there is no trace 
of it in all Christian history. Jesus Christ told 
His Apostles (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) to preach to 
all men the doctrines that He had commanded 
them to teach: tf Going, teach ye all nations t 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you." His was a definite, 
clear gospel, that the Apostles were to guard 
faithfully with their life-blood and hand down 
to their successors until the end of the world. 
Useless indeed would have been their preach- 
ing, suffering, and death, a mockery the death 
of millions of martyrs, a stupendous bit of folly 
the sacrifices of converts from the first day of 
Christianity, if it were true that it made no 
difference what a man believed. 

Why does St. Paul insist so much on the 
unity of faith, " one L,ord, one Faith, one Bap- 
tism" (Eph. iv. 5), and so bitterly denounce 
the Judaizers of his time for attempting to force 
the obsolete customs of the Old L,aw upon the 
early Christians, if it matters nothing? V There 
are some that trouble you and would pervert 
the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an 
angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you 
besides that which we haye preached to you, 
let him be anathema " (Gal. i. 7, 8 ; cf. I. Tim. 
vi. 20; II. Tim. i. 14; II. Thess. ii. 14). 

So from the beginning, the Popes, as the 



Indijferentism. 2% 

great confirmers of the faith of the wavering 
brethren (Luke xxii. 32), have always de- 
nounced error and heresy, and council after 
council of Christian bishops, from the Council 
of Jerusalem in the first century to the Coun- 
cil of the Vatican in the nineteenth, have ut- 
tered their protest against any corruption of 
the faith of Christ, giving the lie direct to the 
false and destructive creed of modern Indif- 
ferentism. 

It is, therefore, the first duty of a rational 
man to love truth, and to embrace it at the 
cost of any sacrifice. It is the mark of a 
coward and a fool to shirk one's responsi- 
bility to the light that God vouchsafes to every 
intellect that He has fashioned after His own. 
We despise a man who has no convictions 
or principles ; he is not to be trusted. God 
despises a man without religious convictions, 
or firm principles of faith. He says Himself 
to the Indifferentist: "I would thou wert 
cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, 
and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit 
thee out of my mouth" (Apoc. iii. 15, 16). 
We despise a "trimmer"; can God love the 
Indifferentist? 

Practically also we find that the man who 
says first, "It does not make any difference 
what a man believes/ ' is tempted to adopt 
its logical conclusion, and say "It does not 



?6 



The Question Box, 



make any difference what a man does." His 
morality is built on the shifting sands of 
opinion, fancy, human respect, and therefore 
will hardly stand the strain of sorrow, dis- 
grace, difficulty, or temptation. If religion is 
mere opinion, a man realizes that all certainty 
of doctrine or morals is impossible, and there- 
fore some form of unbelief is the inevitable 
result. (MacL,aughlin, 4 'Is one Religion as 
Good as Another?") 

Does not the Bible declare that " God is not a 
respecter of persons " and that " He who feareth 
Him, and worketh justice is acceptable to Him " ? 
(Acts x. 34, 35). Is it not sufficient, therefore, 
for a man to be good and charitable, as this pagan 
centurion was, without bothering about creeds ? 

This text is frequently on the lips of men 
who from force of tradition still quote Bible 
texts, although they are unwilling to follow 
the Scripture teaching in every point. To 
quote the words of St. Peter without the con- 
text, and thus make God's word witness to the 
doctrine of indifFerentisrn, is anything but rea- 
sonable. 

The text evidently means that the gospel 
of Jesus Christ is not limited to the Jews, 
but is for all peoples, and that His grace also 
is given to all men without exception. Again, 
that a man living according to the light vouch- 



Indifferentism. 



27 



safed him, fearing God and doing good as 
far as he possibly can under the grace of God, 
although ignorant of the true gospel, is accept- 
able to God. The instant such a one discovers 
the true religion, he will embrace it at once 
without question, as Cornelius did, no matter 
what the cost. 

Why does the God of truth permit so many 
false religions in the world ? In view of the 
multitude of religions in the world, and the di- 
versities of sects among Christians, is not the 
attitude of a sceptic perfectly reasonable ? All 
religions claim to be right, and yet all cannot 
be. What, then, is a man to do, for he has not 
time to study all? 

We readily admit that the existence of so 
many false religions is a great evil, and that its 
explanation will ever remain difficult and mys- 
terious. But because finite man has not been 
admitted into the secrets of the Infinite God, 
must he thereby deny His all- ruling provi- 
dence? By no means. The true manner of 
arguing is thus set forth by Balmes : "The 
evil exists, it is true ; but that Providence also 
exists, is no less certain ; apparently these are 
two things which cannot coexist ; but as you 
know for certain they do exist, this apparent 
contradiction is not sufficient to make you deny 
their existence. What you should do, is to 



28 The Question Box. 

* — — — _______ 



seek a means of removing this contradiction \ 
and in case you cannot possibly discover one ? 
attribute this impossibility to your own inabil- 
ity (" Letters to a Sceptic," II. p. 24, W. B. 
Kelly, Dublin, 1875). 

This is our way of acting in every-day life 
when w r e come across some fact, vouched for by 
unimpeachable testimony, which appears to 
contradict our previous knowledge. n I do not 
see how it can be so," a man says, with regard 
to some of the facts of hypnotism, "but it un- 
doubtedly is so. My ignorance of the explana- 
tion does not render the facts any the less true." 

The only solution to the mystery lies in the 
Catholic dogma of original sin, with its count- 
less train of evils all down the course of history* 

Practically, however, this fact should not 
make a man a sceptic or an infidel. The man 
of science is spurred on to study and investi- 
gate, so that the working hypotheses now held 
by the scientist in general may be stepping- 
stones for him to true facts and principles. If 
a man, therefore, is without faith in Christ, he 
surely ought not to rest, content with his ignor- 
ance of the truth of God. His reason will tell 
him that God exists ; that God is good and 
true and lovii\g ; that God has spoken. A man 
that studies conscientiously, and prays with 
humility for the truth, will, through God's 
help, find out what God has said, and which 



a 



Mysteries. 



29 



religion is the true one. He is not bound to 
study them all, any more than a scientist has to 
tarorry over the exploded theories of the ancients, 
Surely the first demand upon one's study is 
that Church which has taught infallibly for 
^900 years the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, 
witnessing to Him even through countless 
storms of persecution, thriving on the blood of 
many martyrs, fulfilling the prophecies of the 
old law, proving herself b}^ miracles, winning 
the intellect of men by the sublimity of her 
dogma, conquering the heart by the holiness 
of her morality — the Church Catholic, the great 
defender of the rights of God and the rights of 
man. 



MYSTERIES, 

What scientific proof is there of the divinity of 
trie Christian religion? 

The facts of science can be proved and tested, 
but what proof can you show of things invisible 
tnd incomprehensible? I am willing to accept 
mly what can be clearly demonstrated. 

This common objection of the modern unbe- 
liever is about as reasonable as the denial of 
the existence of South Africa to-day, or of 
George Washington a hundred and fifty years 
ago, simply because these facts were not capa- 
ble of scientific demonstration, but rested mere* 



30 



The Question Box. 



ly on the authority of others. Although indeed 
the testimony of others may at times be false 
and misleading, because the witness may be 
deceived or a deceiver, still no one. can reason- 
ably reject altogether the principle of human 
evidence as a criterion of truth, any more than 
he would reject ocular testimony because a par- 
ticular individual was short-sighted, cross-eyed, 
or color-blind. 

Indeed, the very man who boasts of accept= 
ing nothing unless he can personally prove it 
to his own satisfaction, is daily giving the lie to 
his pet theory. Most of his knowledge depends 
not on personal investigation, but on the au« 
thority of others. No progress w r ould be possi- 
ble in any science or art unless a man started 
with the data gathered by his predecessors. 
Will a historian of universal history be able tc 
read all the original documents ? Will a chem- 
ist find time to test every experiment of his 
forbears? Will a lawyer manage to study 
every case in the reports, a geographer visit 
every country, a physician experiment with 
every drug, before he accepts anything as true? 
Life is too short and facts too many to allow of 
this. And yet some of these men reject the 
idea of authority in religion. Is it not the way 
that most men must learn anything whatever? 

How frequently it happens that the same 
rnanwho swallows without question the human, 



Mysteries. 



3* 



fallible, hesitating, and changing authority of 
an anti- Christian dogmatist, will refuse the 
authority of God, voiced in a certain, unchang= 
ing, infallible and divine authority. Is not this 
unreasonable, to say the least? "If we re* 
ceive the testimony of men, the testimony of 
God is greater' ' (I. John v. 9). 

A thinking man, therefore, realizing that he 
is exercising faith every day in his business; 
intellectual, and social life, will not demand of 
Christianity a method of proof impossible in the 
mature of things, but will reasonably investigate 
the reliability of the authority that voices to 
him the truths of God e He asks not expert 
mental proof for the divine truths that are over 
and above reason, but simply • Is there evi- 
dence from authority that Christ is the Son of 
God, and His religiou divine ? He will disa- 
buse himself of every prejudice, and study with 
humility and earnestness the various evidences 
of Christianity ° 9 the argument from miracles 
and prophecy ^ the absolute perfection of Jesus 
Christ, His resurrection from the dead, His 
sublime, unique teachings, the marvellous 
spread and continuance of His Church despite 
every obstacle, the testimony of the martyrs^ 
the lives of the saints of God, the transforma- 
tion of the world effected by Christianity, etc. 
Only those who come with the humility and 
docility of little children will learn the mysteries 



3^ 



The Question Box, 



of GocL * f Unless you be converted, and be« 
come as little children^ you shall not enter into 
the kingdom of heaven " (Matt, xviii. 3). 

Should not a man be perfectly impartial in 
the study of Christianity, and not be carried 
away by a wish to believe? c 

If by impartiality you mean a mere abstract 
interest in the matter of religion, being perfectly 
indifferent whether the issue be faith or agnos- 
ticism, I answer that such impartiality would 
be fatal to all deep, earnest study. While, on 
the one hand, a rational mind ought not to be 
carried away by the superstitious enthusiasm of 
revival religion, he must, however^ realize that 
lie cannot face the religious problem as he 
would a theme in geometry, for it is fraught 
with knowledge of the greatest possible per» 
sonal importance to himself,-— it concerns his 
happiness here and hereafter 3 

The existence of God, our ongin and destiny, 
the fact of eternal punishment, or the divinity of 
Christ, must be viewed in their practical bear- 
ing, There must be a desire to know, a wish 
to believe these stupendous truths, if belief in 
them is rational, and an earnest resolution to do 
one's utmost to see whether they are true or 
not. 

This supposes a will to believe, which does 
not blind one's mind to the evidences of Chris- 



Mysteries. 



33 



tianity by substituting, as some think, the emo- 
tions for the intellect, but on the contrary 
makes the rational seeker after truth more alert 
to know, and more careful in his search. 

For a full treatment of this difficulty read 
"The Wish to Believe/ 1 by Wilfred Ward; 
London, Kegan Paul, 1885. 

I cannot accept Christianity, because it deals 
with incomprehensible mysteries. My reason 
tells me not to accept anything that I do not 
comprehend. 

Must not a man blind himself perfectly, be- 
fore he accept such dogmas as the Trinity, the 
Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation, etc.? 

Do not these so-called truths evidently go 
counter to my reason? 

It is strange that so many to-day, in the 
name of reason and science, refuse to accept 
the mysteries of faith. One would imagine 
that mystery or the incomprehensible was pe- 
culiar to religion, yet a moment's reflection 
will convince us that w T e are surrounded by 
mystery. In the order of nature the scientist 
finds it impossible to explain the simplest 
phenomena of light, heat, force, electricity. 
Science may tell of facts : that this earth of 
ours travels through space at the rate of a 
thousand miles a minute; that the sun, which 
weighs 300,000 times as much, is suspended. 



34 



The Question Box. 



one knows not how, in an element subtler than 
air; that the planets and the stars move in 
certain paths, so well defined that their position 
can be foretold a century hence if need be ; 
that given certain conditions of light, heat, 
and moisture, the little seed will develop into 
a mighty tree, etc.; but to explain them, it can 
do no more than coin words which but veil the 
ignorance of their framers. 14 I know," said 
Newton, "the laws of attraction; but if you 
ask me what attraction is, I really cannot tell." 
(J. S. Vaughan, " -Faith and Folly," chap, 
i.; Hettinger, " Revealed Religion," edited by 
H. S. Bowden, eh. i.) 

How foolish to hope adequately to compre- 
hend all the truths of God. Can the finite 
mind of man grasp the infinite ? As well say 
that the unlettered miner, who slaves from morn 
till night in the bowels of the earth, can follow 
the theme of a Beethoven symphony, or appre- 
ciate a canto of Dante's Inferno. What 
indeed is a revelation that reveals nothing ? 
What is a religion all of whose truths are with- 
in the compass of reason? If indeed in reli- 
gion the element of mystery were done away 
with, our rationalist objector would instantly 
point in triumph to its human origin. 

The true rationalist does not first ask, M How 
can this be true?" but "Has God spoken? 
Can we know with real certainty all that H§ 



Mysteries. 



35 



has said?" He knows that if God has given 
a message unto men, there must needs be diffi- 
culties and mysteries, for these abound everl 
in the works of God (Eccles. viii. 17). None 
of the mysteries of Christianity go counter to 
reason. St. Thomas says: " Although the 
doctrines of faith surpass the truths of human 
understanding, there can be no opposition be- 
tween them. Both proceed from God in their 
respective orders of grace and nature. And 
the doctrines of faith become as indubitable, 
through the evidence of the divine authority 
revealing them, as the primary truths of rea- 
son do through their self-evident testimony 
("Cont. Gent." i. 7). ■ 

Reason having once ascertained the fact of 
revelation, tells us the obligation to accept 
God's word without question. It is the height 
of unreason to dogmatize about unproved 
scientific hypotheses, which demand a mere 
blind acceptance of mysterious data, more in- 
comprehensible than any Christian dogma, and 
in the same breath to question "the greater 
testimony of God" (I. John v. 9; Bishop 
Ricards, " Catholic Christianity and Modern Un- 
belief," ch. ii.) 

The unbeliever who sincerely wishes to know 
the truths of God must approach the study of 
Christianity with the docile and humble spirit 
of a child, ready to accept all the teaching of 



36 



The Question Box. 



the Master, the Son of God, no matter how 
mysterious or incomprehensible it may appear. 
<% Unless you become as little children, you 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven " 
(Matt, xviii. 3). 

The mysteries of Christianity rest merely on 
private interpretation of the Scriptures, a very 
variable quantity. Why then demand my as- 
sent to them? 

Our objector grasps the fact that Protestant- 
ism, with its fundamental principle of private 
judgment, cannot afford a satisfactory basis for 
belief in the mysteries of Christianity. This is 
evidenced practically in the denials to-day of 
such fundamental dogmas as the divinity of 
Christ, the Trinity, eternal punishment, etc., 
which are made frequently from the pulpit, 
and by the pen of Christian ministers with 
" liberal " views. 

The mysteries of Christianity, on Catholic 
principles, come to us on the divine authority 
of the Catholic Church, which voices infallibly 
the teaching of the Master, Jesus Christ. She 
advises the unbeliever to divest himself of all 
prejudice, and to ask in a humble, prayerful 
spirit: "Has God taught these truths to the 
world ? Is there a divine teacher in the world 
to-day that guarantees to me absolute certainty 
of all His teaching? " 



The Trinity. 



37 



THE TRINITY. 

I cannot believe an absurd contradiction in 
terms. In your dogma of the Trinity you de- 
clare that one is three and three are one. My 
reason tells me of a personal God, and that 
is all. 

The dogma of the Trinity, although one of 
the most profound m} r steries of Christianity, 
does not involve the contradiction you assert. 
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that 
there is one divine nature, and in that divine 
nature there are three persons. As therefore 
the words one and three refer to two es- 
sentially distinct things, nature and person, 
there can be no question of any absurd or con- 
tradictory statement of doctrine. 

The dogma is thus set forth by the Athana- 
sian Creed : " This is the Catholic faith : that 
we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity 
in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor 
dividing the substance. For there is one per- 
son of the Father, another of the Son, and 
another of the Holy Ghost ; but the Godhead 
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty 
coeternal. . . . The Father is made of 
none, neither created nor begotten ; the Son is 
of the Father alone, not made nor created, but 
begotten \ the Holy Ghost is of the Father 



?.8 



The Question Box. 



and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor 
begotten, but proceeding.' ' 

Undoubtedly your reason would never find 
out such a mystery, which even when knv,vvn 
by revelation, is still utterly beyond the com- 
prehension of man. Catholics believe it on 
the word of the Son of God, evidenced to them 
with infallible certainty by the divine, infalli- 
ble teacher appointed by the Saviour — the 
Catholic Church. 



CHRISTIAN FAITH. 

I would give worlds to believe, but cannot. 
Will God condemn me for something I cannot 
help? 

God, who is infinitely just, will condemn 
only those who knowingly and deliberately 
commit grievous sin and die unrepentant. 

If, as you say, you cannot at present be- 
lieve, I assure you that this condition of mind 
is only temporary. Your duty is plain. 

Do not expect to be able to grasp every- 
thing in Christianity, for God's revelation 
cannot be adequately known by any human 
intellect. Do uot look for mathematical evi- 
dence for the Luths of faith, but study care- 
fully the Christian evidences with a view to 
obtaining a good working certainty that ex- 
cludes all doubting, Dq ml dismayed by 



Christian Faith. 



39 



difficulties, remembering, as Cardinal New- 
man well said, that ten thousand difficulties 
do not make one doubt. Do not rationalize, 
asking, with Nicodemus: "How can these, 
things be done?" (John iii. 9) ; or the un- 
believing Jews at Capharnaum : "How can this 
Man give us His flesh to eat? " (John vi. 53) ; 
but rather : ' ' Is this Jesus who teaches re- 
generation and the Real Presence indeed God 
revealing His divine truth to men?" Re- 
member that although your reason must de- 
mand, sufficient proof of a revelation before 
accepting it, it is not the standard of revealed 
truth. Ask God's pardon for all your sins, 
for wickedness blurs the spiritual vision of 
many an unbeliever; as St. Paul teaches: 
" The sensual man perceiveth not these things 
that are of the spirit of God, for it is foolish- 
ness to him, and he cannot understand, be- 
cause it is spiritually examined 99 (I. Cor. ii. 
14). It is frequently a short step from the 
confiteor to the credo ; from the act of sorrow 
to the act of faith. Earnest, heartfelt prayer 
will be answered infallibly, if we come to God 
with the humble and docile spirit of the child. 
" If any man will do the will of Him, he shall 
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God" 
(John vii. 17). " If you ask the Father any- 
thing in My Name, He will give it you " 
(John xvL 23),; - . 



4Q 



The Question Box. 



MIRACLES. 

How are miracles possible when the laws of 
nature are fixed and unchangeable? Is not a 
miracle a violation of the laws of nature? 

It is indeed true that nature works accord- 
ing to fixed laws; but these laws are not, like 
the truths of mathematics, intrinsically and 
absolutely necessary. Experience tells us that, 
as a rule, they are unchanging, but neither 
reason nor experience asserts that the omnipo- 
tent, free God, cannot intervene at will to pre- 
vent their operation. God in creating the 
world did not subject Himself to the laws of 
His creation. A miracle, however, does not 
destroy any law or even suspend its w r orking> 
but merely in a particular instance supposes 
the intervention of God to prevent a certain 
law from having its ordinary effect. There is 
no danger of the laws of nature being over= 
thrown, or science disturbed in the least ; for 
miracles are rare occurrences, which simply 
emphasize the more the ordinary course of 
nature. Were it not for the uniformity of 
nature's laws, one never could be certain of a 
miracle. 

Is it not strange that one should grant that 
man can interfere with the working of laws, 
v. g., overcome the law of gravitation by hold* 



Miracles, 



41 



Itig a stone in his hand, and yet deny that 
the infinitely free God can act above and be* 
yond the laws of His own framing ? (Schanz, 
<S A Christian Apology,' * vol. i. ch s x.) 

Do n3t miracles argue a change in an un- 
changeable God? 

Not at all. The ordinary action of the laws 
of nature as well as the divine interference 
therewith, evidenced in miracles, were alike 
foreseen and willed by God for all eternity. 
There is no past and future with Him Q He is 
the Eternally Present. 

Human intelligence can suspend and control 
the forces of nature to its own temporal ad- 
vantage. Why then insist that the Creator 
of the world must be entirely subject to the 
laws He Himself has framed ? 

Perhaps what you style a miracle may be due 
to some unknown law zf nature. You must ad- 
mit that as yet we do not know all her secrets. 

A little reflection will convince a man that 
a knowledge of all the laws of nature is not 
necessary to determine whether a particular 
fact be miraculous or not. Medical science 
may make great strides within the next cen- 
tury, but no new medicine will ever be able 
call the dead to life. Hypnotic suggestion 
*nay effect some wonderful new cures, but it 



42 The Question Box. 

never will give sight to a man without eyes, 
A new Edison may make some new discover- 
ies more marvellous than his, yet no inventor 
will ever be able to calm the winds and waves 
at a word or to pass through a closed door. 

If, then, we have good evidence of an effect 
beyond the power of any creature, as, for in- 
stance, the feeding of five thousand men with 
five loaves, the very uniformity of the laws 
of science forbids us to deny the miracle in 
virtue of some unknown law It is merely a 
question of evidence*, 

Granting miracles are possible, how, taking 
into account the general unreliability of human 
testimony, can any particular one be proved? 

If the miracles of the Gospel were wrought 
before a body of scientists, well and good| but 
how trust the evidence of ignorant Galilean 
peasants ? 

To deny the possibility of proving a miracle 
because testimony is sometimes unreliable, is 
about as sensible as denying all historical facts 
• whatsoever because some historians may have 
been deceivers or deceived. A miracle is a 
question of evidence, and being a phenomenon 
that falls under the senses, it can be known 
with the same certainty as any other fact, — by 
trustworthy evidence. An ignorant peasant 
could testify as well as the most cultured phari- 



Miracles, 



43 



see or modern scientist to the fact that, first* 
Lazarus was dead and his body corrupt, and 
that afterwards at the words of Christ, " Laza- 
rus, come forth" (John xi. 43), he instantly 
came to life* 

A body of scientists might themselves be 
poor witnesses, especially if they would not 
divest themselves of the rationalistic prejudice 
which denies that miracles are possible. But 
it requires no scientific acquirements whatever^ 
but the mere use of one's eyes, to testify to 
the instant cure of a "man born blind, a leper 
cleansed of his leprosy, and the like. 

Do not all religions claim their miracles? 
What special proving power, therefore, have the 
miracles of Christ? Did not Simon Magus, 
Apollonius of Tyana, Buddha, Mohammed, claim 
to work miracles ? What of the Christian Scien- 
tists and Dowieites of our own day? 

It is true that every false religion has put 
forth this claim, but these false wonders no 
more disprove the existence of true miracles 
than a counterfeit coin disproves the existence 
of a good original. 

On the contrary, they prove the universal 
acceptance of miracles as a test of divine truth. 

A little study of the miracles wrought by the 
Saviour will bring out in clear contrast the 
difference between the true and the false. 



44 The Question Box. 

«- •• " ' ' ■ ■ ■ 

As regards the question of fact, many of the 
pagan miracles were based on poetic legends 
related centuries after their occurrence, v.g. y 
the myths of Greece and Rome, the miracles 
of Buddha, etc.; while the miracles of Christ 
are attested by authentic contemporaneous 
documents. Again, the alleged wonders 01 
false religions are absurd, ridiculous, and 
meaningless, being evidently framed to show 
the great power of their author: v. £*., the five 
hundred white lions, and the dragon-harnessed 
chariot of Buddha ; the walking statues, or 
flights through the air of Simon Magus; the 
moon-dividing of Mohammed. - The miracles 
of Christ, on the contrary, are never extrava- 
gant or foolish, but consist of wonderful cures 
and manifestations of divine power, to which 
He could appeal as proof of His divine mis- 
sion: "Though you will not believe me, be- 
lieve the works ; that you may know and be- 
lieve that the Father is in me, and I in the 
Father " (John x. 38). 

The perfect spotlessness of the life of Christ 
is warrant for belief in these words. Ou no 
other hypothesis can the miracles of Christ be 
explained, save as works requiring divine 
power; whereas the alleged wonders in the 
false religions of Buddhism, Brahminism, 
Greek and Roman paganism, or in modern 
spiritism, theosophy, Christian Science, and 



The Gospels. 



45 



Dowieism, can be traced either to fraud, hallu- 
cination, hypnotic suggestion, or diabolism* 
(Jaugey, "Diet. Apol.," 2088, 2116; New 
man, "Essay on Miracles/' i. sec. 3). 



THK GOSPELS. 

Your account of Christ rests on the four gos- 
pels. How are we sure to-day that they are 
genuine history ? They may have been written 
long after the events they record; or, again, 
what guarantee is there that we have the origi- 
nal statement of Christianity after so many 
years? 

It is impossible for us to discuss in a few 
words the genuinity or authenticity of the four 
gospels. No clear-headed man, however, can 
in conscience reject them after he has carefully 
studied the question. We merely outline some 
of the chief arguments. 

1st. The four gospels are quoted verbatim or 
in paraphrase by writers of the first three cen» 
turies, viz.: Pope Clement of Rome (96 A. D.)^ 
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (80-1 20) 5 
the Epistle of Barnabas (120-130), Ignatius^ 
martyr (105-117), Polycarp (168), Papias 
(1*5), Justin (160), Tatian (170), The Mura- 
imlm Fragment (190-210), Irenseua (*77)t 



4 6 



The Question Box. 



Tertullian (199), Clement of Alexandria (192), 
Origen (230), etc. 

2d. The early enemies of Christianity — the 
Jew, the heretic, and the pagan — although 
they ridiculed aud perverted the gospels, never 
dreamt of denying their genuinity, for they 
realized the utter impossibility of so futile an 
argument gaining credence. 

3d. Another witness is the number of apocry- 
phal gospels written by heretics to spread their 
false doctrines, or by the orthodox as pious 
forgeries to complete the gospel narrative. 
Their very existence testifies to the four gos- 
pels, as a counterfeit coin evidences the exist- 
ence of a true original. 

4th. The very fact that the four gospels were 
universally accepted in the fourth century by 
the Fathers — men tenacious of tradition and 
haters of every novelty of. doctrine — points con- 
clusively to their genuineness. Considering, 
too, their great love and reverence of the Scrip- 
tures, no writer, no matter how clever, could 
foist a new gospel on them, .any moie than a 
history of the Revolution written to-day could 
pass current with the American people as a 
document of the eighteenth century. 

5th. There was likewise no danger of the 
gospels undergoing any substantial change. 
The gospels were known and read in all the 
churches, copies and versions were being coa- 



The Gospels. 47 

tinually made, the early teachers of Chris** 
iianity quoted them frequently from their pul- 
pits and in their writings ; any change would 
instantly be met by a mighty protest from both 
pastors and people, as we see in the case of the 
heretical and Jewish perversions of the Sacred 
Scriptures. 

6th. Some unbelievers have accused the gos- 
pel writers of ignorance, superstition, fanati- 
cism, and even deliberate fraud, the better to 
controvert their testimony. But an earnest, 
sincere student of the gospels will find, on the 
contrary, that they were men of truth who re- 
lated what they themselves had seen and heard 
[L John i. 1-3; II. Pet. i. 6); they told of 
miracles performed and doctrines preached pub* 
Hcly before unbelievers (John xviii. 20, 21), 
which none dared gainsay ; they had no possi- 
ble motive for deception, for they went counter 
to the current Jewish and pagan ideas and 
knew that they would meet persecution and 
death ; they won many converts and helped in 
the foundation of a religion which stands 
unique in the world by its sublime doctrine of 
faith and morality. No explanation will ac- 
count for the fact save that they were true 
speakers sent by God. 



The Question Box, 



THE DIVINITY OP CHRIST. 

Is it not incredible that God should become 
nan? 

What proofs are there that Jesus Christ was 
the Son of God? 

May not the texts in which Christ speaks of 
unity with the Father imply only the moral 
unity of an adopted sonship? 

Cannot a man reverence Jesus as the highest 
and most perfect type of the race without ac- 
knowledging Him to be divine? I believe that 
men should strive more to live Christ's life than 
to discuss the dogma of His divinity. 

' 'We need to appreciate that the doctrine 
of the Incarnation is not a hard one to ac- 
cept. There is no revolt in the natural mind 
against the thought of God becoming man. 
It is not a thought which arouses aversion in 
us. Indeed, we give it welcome. That man 
should be raised to a participation in the di- 
vine nature is a difficult thing to understand, if 
the word is meant to imply a full and clear 
comprehension. But the human race or any 
part of it has never felt it to be incredibleo 
. . . The dignity of man suggests the pos- 
sibility of the Incarnation ; the aspirations of 
man suggest its probability ; the degradation 
©f man cries out for it ; and implores its im- 



The Divinity of Christ. 



49 



mediate gift " (Elliott, " Life of Christ," Epi- 
logue, pp. i.-vii.) 

The divinity of Christ is the foundation- 
doctrine of the Christian religion. Deny Him 
as the Son of God, and at once the whole fab- 
ric of revelation falls to pieces ; confess Him 
to be divine, and the logical mind grasps at 
once the necessity of a divine, infallible teacher 
in the world to-day, speaking in His name 
and with His authority. 

The arguments for the divinity of Christ are : 

ist. Throughout the four gospels Christ 
clearly asserts His divinity. 

He claims perfect equality with the Father — 
the Jehovah of the Jews — in absolute oneness 
of essence (" I and the Father are one." — 
John x. 30), in parity of working power (" My 
Father worketh until now, and I work." — John 
v. 17; ' 4 What things soever the Father doth, 
these the Son also doth in like manner."-^ 
v. 19), in eternal Being (" Before Abraham 
w r as made, I am." — John viii. 58), in the equal 
right to the homage of mankind ("That all 
may honor the Son as they honor the Fath- 
er." — John v. 23; cf. xiv. 1, 13; xv. 10; 
Matt. x. 37). 

It is evident that our Lord, in John x. 30, 
spoke of His absolute, essential oneness with 
the Father because He * ' was addressing earn- 
est monotheists, keenly alive to the essential 



So 



The Question Box. 



i 



distinction between the life of the Creator and 
the life of the creature, and religiously jealous 
of the divine prerogatives. The Jews did not 
understand Christ's claim to be one with the 
Father in any moral, spiritual, or mystical 
sense. Christ did not encourage them so to 
understand it. The motive of their indigna- 
tion (" we stone Thee for blasphemy, because 
that Thou, being a man, maketh Thyself 
God." — John x. 33) was not disowned by Him. 
They believed Him to mean that He was Him- 
self a divine Person ; and He never repudi- 
ated that construction of His language " (L,id- 
don, " The Divinity of our I/H-d," Lecture iv. 
pp. 188-J1S9). > ^ 

Again, the Jews evidently understood our 
Saviour to claim a right to break the Sab- 
bath as the Lord of the Sabbath, the equal 
of Jehovah who had prescribed the law, and 
for that reason they * ' sought the more to kill 
Him, because He said God was His Father, 
making Himself equal to God" (John v. 18). 
A third time they stoned Him as a bias* 
phemer (John viii. 59), when He claimed to 
be the "I am who am" of Israel (Exod. iii c 
14), the sterna 1 "Now." 

Every one who studies the life of Christ 
must admit, that He was sincere (John vi e 26 5 
xiii. 38; xviii. 37), unselfish (John v. 301 
vi. 38; x. 11; Matt. xxvi. 39), and humble 



The Divinity of Christ. 



51 



(Luke viii. 51; Matt. ix. 30; Mark viii. 11; 
Matt. xi. 29). But "is He, if He be not 
God, really humble? Can Jesus bid us to be- 
lieve in Him (John xiv. 1), love Him, obey 
Him (John xv. 10), live by Him (John vi. 58), 
live for Him (Matt. xvi. 24) ; can He thus 
claim to be the universal Teacher (Matt, xxviii. 
20) and the universal Judge (Matt. xxv. 31- 
41), the Way, the Truth, the Life of human- 
ity (John xiv. 6), if He be indeed only man? 
. . If Jesus Christ be not God, is He 
really unselfish f He bids men make Himself 
the centre of their affections and their thoughts 
(John xiv. 6, 14 ; xi. 25 ; xiv. 1 ; vi. 29 ; v. 23 ; 
viii. 42; xv. 23 ; xiv. 15, etc.) ; and when God 
does this, He is but recalling man to that 
which is man's proper duty, to the true direc- 
tion and law of man's being. But deny Christ's 
divinity, and what will you say of the disin- 
terestedness of His perpetual self-assertion ? 
. . . If Jesus Christ is not God, can we 
even say that He is sincere? For if He is 
not God, where does He make any adequate 
repudiation of a construction of His words so 
utterly derogatory to the great Creator, so 
necessarily abhorrent to a good man's thought ? 
. . . Would not a purely human Christ 
have anticipated the burning words of the in- 
dignant Apostle at the gate of Lystra ? ' ' (Acts 
xiv. 14; Iyiddon, ibid. y pp. 195-203). 



J 

$2 



The Question Box. 



f There can be no doubt that the Sanhedrin 
condemned our L,ord to death because He 
claimed to be divine. Their words to Pilate 
were : i ' We have a law ; and according to the 
lav/ (L,ev. xxiv. 16 ; Deut. xiii. 5) He ought 
to die, because He made Himself the Son of 
God" (John xix. 7). The high-priest put 
the question plainly to our L,ord : < 1 Art Thou 
the Christ, the Son of the blessed God ? And 
Jesus said to him, I am " (Mark xiv. 61, 62; 
cf. Matt. xxvi. 64). This open claim of being 
the Son of God in a real, true sense was styled 
blasphemy, and sealed the death-sentence of 
Jesus Christ. 

2d. The Apostles clearly teach that Jesus is 
God. 

St. Peter, when questioned by Christ on 
this very point, declares explicitly "Thou art 
Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matt, 
xvi. 16), and our Lord in answer blesses him 
for his profession of faith, and declares it in- 
spired by His Heavenly Father. " Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood 
hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father 
who is in heaven" {cf. John vi. 70; I. PeL 
i. 2 ; iv. 2 ; II. Pet. i. 1). 

The unbelieving St. Thomas, convinced by 
the fact of the resurrection, is forced to cry out 
"My Lord and my God" (John xx. 28). St. 
John wrote his whole gospel that men * 1 may 



The Divinity of Christ. 



S3 



believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of 
God" (John xx. 31), and in his opening 
chapter he declares Jesus the only begotten 
Son of God, eternal and consubstantial with 
His Father (John i. 1-14; cf. I. John iv. 15; 
v. 20). St. Paul writes clearly of Christ : 
"Who being in the form of God, thought it 
not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil. ii. 
6), and in many other passages speaks of Him 
as the eternal Son of God, the Creator of all 
things, etc. (Col. i. 15, 16; Rom. ix. 5; viii. 
32 ; Heb. i. 1-14). 

This public unanimous preaching of Christ's 
divinity by the Apostles can be explained on 
no other hypothesis than the positive revelation 
of Jesus Christ their Master. 

3d. The miracles which Jesus wrought in 
His own name and by His own power prove 
Him to be God. 

When Jesus found that His testimony was 
gainsaid, He frequently appealed to the mira- 
cles He wrought as setting the seal of the 
divine approval upon His teachings, and His 
claim of equality with the Father (Matt. xi. 4, 
5; John v. 36; x. 38; xiv. 12). His life is 
one series of miracles. He stills the storm 
with a word (Mark iv. 39), He walks upon the 
sea (Matt. xiv. 25), He feeds the multitudes 
with a few loaves and fishes (John vi. 10), He 
changes water into wine (John ii. 9), He drives 



54 



The Question Box, 



out demons from the possessed (Mark i. 25; 
iii. 11; v. 8, etc), He heals the blind, the 
deaf, the dumb, the leper, and the paralytic 
(Mark ix. 25 ; viii. 1-5 ; Luke v. 24), He 
raises the dead to life (Matt. ix. 25 ; Luke 

vii. 15 ; John xi. 44). He is transfigured be- 
fore the Apostles (Mark ix. 3), He rises from 
the dead, converses with the disciples for forty 
days, and then ascends on high to His heavenly 
Father (Matt, xxviii. ; Acts i. 9, etc.) 

The saints and prophets work miracles also* 
but they always do so in the name of God or 
Christ Jesus. He alone performs them of Hini- 
self: "I will, be thou made clean" (Matt* 

viii. 3); "Do you believe that I can do this 
unto you?" (Matt. ix. 28; cf. Luke vii. 141 
John xi. 44; Matt. viii. 5-13, etc.) 

The unbelievers of our day have striven to 
give us a life of Jesus, while utterly denying 
the historical reality of the miracles recorded of 
Him. But "to expel miracles from the life of 
Jesus is to destroy the identity of tne Christ 
of the Gospels ; it is to substitute a new Christ 
for the Christ of Christendom : . . . these 
(rationalistic) commentators do not affect to 
take the history as it has come down to us 
As the Gospel narratives stand, they present a 
block of difficulties to Humanitarian theories | 
and these difficulties can only be removed by 
mutilations of the narrative so wholesale and 



The Divinity of Christ, 



55 



radical as to destroy their substantial interest, 
besides rendering the retention of the fragments 
which may be retained a purely arbitrary pro- 
cedure/ 9 

In a word, miracles are so interwoven with 
the life of Christ, and so prominent a feature of 
His daily teaching, that the * 4 moral integrity 
of our Iyord's character is dependent, whether 
we will or not, upon the reality of His mira- 
cles ,, (Iyiddon, ibid., pp. 161-163). 

5th. Pascal considered the prophetical argu- 
ment the strongest proof of Christ's divinity 
(PascaPs c< Thoughts, 99 p. 128). Even among 
the pagan nations there was a general expecta- 
tion of a new revelation and a new teacher 
from on high. The Old Testament ;n a series 
of prophecies extending over thousands of years 
announces all the details of the life of Christ. 
God promises a redeemer to Adam (Gen. iii, 
15). He is to be of the stock of Abraham 
(Gen. xii. 13), Isaac (xxvi. 4), Jacob (Gen. 
xxviii. 14; Num. xxiv. 17), of the tribe of 
Juda (Gen. xlviii. 8-10 ; cf. Heb. vii. 14), 
and of the family of David (Isa. Jx. 7 ; ii. 
1-7; cf. Rom. i. 3; II. Tim. ii. 8). 

Moses declares that He will be a great 
prophet (Deut. xviii. 15), Isaias foretells His 
birth of a virgin mother (vii. 14) and His 
power of miracles (xxxv. 4-6), Malachias tells 
of His precursor (iii. 1 ; cf. Luke i. 76 ; iii. 2), 



56 The Question Box, 

Micheas marks the place and Daniel the time 
of His coming (Mich. v. 2, 3; cf. Matt. ii. 1 ; 
Luke ii. 4; Dan. ix. 24-27), Isaias declares 
Him the prince of peace (ix. 6 ; cf. Luke ii. 
14; John xiv. 27), foretells the place of His 
preaching (ix. 1. 2; cf. Matt. iv. 15), and says 
He will make a new covenant for the gentiles 
(ii. 4 ; cf. Luke i. 3 ; Matt. xvi. 28 ; xxviii. 
19; Mark xvi. 15); the Psalms (xxi. and 
IxviiL), Isaias (liii.)> and Zacharias (xi. 12) 
tell the minutest details of His passion and 
death. (Maas, " Christ in Type and Pro- 
phecy.") 

5th. Christ's own power of prophecy proves 
Him God. 

He foretells His own death and resurrec- 
tion (Matt. xii. 40; xvii. 21-22; xxvii. 63; 
xx. 17-19; Luke xiii. 32; John ii. 19), the 
treachery of Judas (John xiii. 26), the denial 
of Peter and the manner of His death (Matt, 
xxvi. 34; John xxi. 18-22), the destruction of 
Jerusalem fMatt. xxiv.), the dispersion of the 
Jews (Luke xxi. 24), and the spread of His 
Church (John x. 16; Matt. xiii. 31). 

6th. One of the most striking proofs of 
Christ's divinity is His absolute sinlessness. 
He proposes the highest standard of sanctity 
possible: "Be you therefore perfect, as also 
your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. v. 
48) ; and instead of insisting on His own per- 



The Divinity of Christ. 



57 



sonal unworthiness, as He must needs have 
done were He only a great prophet like Isaias 
(" I am a man of unclean lips," Isa. vi. 5), He, 
on the contrary, challenges His enemies to find 
in Him the slightest sin : " which of you shall 
convince Me of sin?" (John viii. 46), and 
declares that He always does His Father's will, 
" for I do always the things that please Him " 
(John viii. 29; Bougaud, " The Divinity of 
Jesus Christ,' ' ch. iv.; Liddon, /. c. y p. 165- 

168). 

7th. The sublime teachings of the Saviour, 
together with the wonderful spread of His 
Church by the simplest methods against the 
mightiest enemies, the transformation of the 
world from the lust, pride, cruelty, and idola- 
try of paganism to the Christian purity, humil- 
ity, gentleness, love of God and the brethren 
for God's sake, prove that the Worker of this 
change was not human but divine. 

8th. 1 1 If Christ be not divine, actually God, 
then the supreme Ruler of men's souls has 
failed both in His messenger and His message^ 
and failed fatally. Christ was sent to eradi- 
cate idolatry, which had proven to be the 
deepest seated evil of humanity, and to estab- 
lish impregnably the very opposite, the knowl- 
edge and worship of the true God. The light- 
est belief in Divine Providence identifies its 
rulings in this sense with Christ and His mis- 



53 



The Question Box, 



sion, and they resulted in universal Christ-wor- 
ship., . . . If Christ be not God, He is the 
author of the most obstinate idolatry ever 
known. No teaching so awfully authoritative 
as His, no life so irresistibly attractive, no 
death so solemn and so triumphant. Has the 
only result been idolatry ? " (Elliott, " Life of 
Christ/' Epilogue, xv. xvii.) 

Men cannot remain indifferent to this doc- 
trine, for it is fraught with mighty conse- 
quences here and hereafter. This world takes 
on another aspect to the man who knows 
that God has deigned to honor it by living 
here for a time, and to exalt human nature by 
making it His very own. You cannot do away 
with Christ's divinity and pretend to follow out 
His teaching. If He be only man, His power 
to command is subject to the caprice of every 
individual. If He is God, then it follows 
naturally that His doctrines must be believed 
under penalty of damnation (Mark xvi. 16), 
and His commandments obeyed under penalty 
of hell. Logically, also, there must be in the 
world to-day a teacher of His gospel, divine as 
He was divine, infallible as He was infallible, 
voicing His gospel to all men unto the end 
(Matt, xxviii. 20 ; Acts i. 8); an authority of 
which He said? "He that heareth you hear- 
eth Me" (Luke x. 16; Fouard, "Life of 
Christ"; Didon, "Life of Christ Lacor- 



The Divinity of Christ. 



59 



daire, -'Conferences on Jesus Christ Ni- 
colas, 1 'The Divinity of Christ " j FreppeS, 
'Discourses on the Divinity of Christ.") 

If Christ performed the miracles recorded in 
the New Testament, why then did the Jews put 
Him to death? 

This difficulty is thus answered by Fathei 
Lambert : 

14 The argument of this question is, that be= 
cause the Jews put Christ to death, they did 
not believe in His miracles as recorded in the 
Gospels. But this conclusion is false. The 
Jews believed that God had forbidden them to 
abandon the law of Moses, even if a prophet 
performing miracles required them to do so. 
From the time of Christ down to the present 
the Jews have always and uniformly believed 
In the reality of the miracles of Christy If you 
do not believe this, consult their Talmuds. 
- 81 Well, then, you will ask, if they admitted 
the fact of His miracles, why did they not 
accept Him as the Messias ? While they ad= 
mitted the miracles, they did not believe that 
they proved Him to be the Messias. Their 
prophets had performed miracles under the 
Mosaic law. They had even raised the dead 
The Jews in the time of Christ could not under- 
stand how miracles could be worked to abro- 
gate that law r . Fixed habits and prejudices, 



6o 



The Qnestio7i Box. 



then, caused them to reject the evidence of His 
miracles, while they admitted the fact of them. 
They attributed them to Beelzebub. 

4 'Again, they believe that the promised Son 
of David was to be a great temporal prince, 
that He was to free the Jewish people, and 
establish a great Jewish empire, restore the 
Jewish nobility, and raise the Aaronic priest- 
hood to its ancient pre-eminence and glory. 
His preaching and humble life gave no encour- 
agement to these hopes, and they refused to 
believe in Him as the promised Messias, even 
while they admitted H : s miracles. And they 
put Him to death as they had put to* death their 
acknowledged prophets " (Lambert, " Notes on 
Ingersoll," chap. xvi. pp. 140-141). 



THE INCARNATION AND REDEMPTION. 

What does the Catholic Church teach concern- 
ing the Incarnation? 

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus 
Christ is both God and man — the eternal, only 
begotten Sou of the Eternal Father, who be- 
came flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 14). 

In Jesus Christ there are two natures, the 
divine and the human, perfect!}- distinct from 
each other, and yet forming but one divine per- 
sonality, The Athanasian Veed declares that 



The Incarnation and Redemption. 6 1 



Jesus is 1 ' God of the substance of the Father, 
born before all ages, and man of the substance 
of His mother, born in time. Perfect God and 
perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and 
human body. Equal to the Father, according 
;o His divinity ; less than the Father, accord- 
ing to His humanity. • . . One not by the 
changing of the divinity into flesh, but by the 
assumption of the humanity unto God. One 
not by the confounding of substance, but by 
the unit} of person c For as the rational soul 
and the body is one man, so God and man is 
one Christ. " 

" Just as one may point out a man, and say 
of him, 4 This is my brother* or 'my friend,' 
so we can say of Jesus Christ, * This is the 
Eternal God, Creator of heaven and earth, 
my Master, my Judge, my everlasting Hope. 
. ^ • His humanity is no fiction c Fis body 
is a real true body, born of Mary, ever Virgin, 
pierced on the Cross, sitting now at the right 
hand of God. . . . He has a human soul, 
united to His flesh like our souls are to our 
flesh. . . . The two natures were each the 
nature of one and the same Person ; and what 
each nature did the Person did ; what each 
nature was the Person was. 

M God was made man, and was man. A 
man was God. ... It was not the hu~ 
manity which created all things, it was not the 



62 



The Quest io7i Box. 



Godhead which was nailed to the cross; but 
the Person to whom both belonged did the 
one and suffered the other, and the Person was 
Jesus Christ" (Bishop Hedley, "Our Divine 
Saviour and other Discourses," Sermon I.) 

What is the Catholic doctrine of the redemp- 
tion? 

The Church has defined that "Christ is 
the mediating cause of salvation, inasmuch as 
through His death, as a sin-oftering, He has 
merited our salvation, and making satisfaction 
for us to God, has blotted out sin. In other 
words, His merits and satisfaction, as being 
those of our Representative and Mediator, 
have obtained for us salvation from God." 
. . . " The Council of Trent several times 
insists upon the merits of the Mediator: e.g., 
by the merit of the one Mediator original sin 
is taken away (Sess. V. can. iii.) ; the merit- 
ing cause of our justification is Christ, who 
for us made satisfaction to God, the Father" 
(Sess. VI. ch. vii.) (Wilhelm-Scannell, "A 
Manual of Catholic Theology," vol. ii. p. 183; 
ef. ibid.,^* 181-207; Oxenham, "The Atone- 
ment.") 

Why should God punish His innocent Son for 
the guilt of men? 

s * In the economy of salvation the sinner h 



The Bible \ 6$ 

bound to give personal satisfaction ; if he does 
not, his lot is damnation. Christ was not 
punished instead of the sinner, nor against 
His own will as sinners are punished ; by the 
holiest of free acts He bore the penalties of 
sin in order to merit for the sinner a means 
of satisfying which lay beyond human power c 
His vicarious satisfaction is not the transfer of 
punishment from the unjust to the just, but 
the transfer of the merits of the just to the 
unjust" (Wilhelm-Scannell, "A Manual of 
Catholic Theology/ 9 vol. ii. p. 188.) 



THE BIBLE. 

Is not the Bible an all-sufficient guide to the 
truths taught by the Saviour ? 

Is it not better to trust an infallible, divine 
book for the gospel teaching, than the mere tra- 
ditions of men? 

I will accept none of your teachings unless you 
give me Bible proof. Where in the Bible do you 
find, etc. 

Is not the meaning of the Bible evident to any 
Christian who reads it devoutly? 

- The Reformers of the sixteenth century de- 
clared that the Bible only, understood accord- 
ing to an individual's private judgment, was 
the complete source and organ of revealed 



64 The Question Box. 

truth for man's salvation. They had denied 
the divine, infallible authority established by 
Jesus Christ, and so/ in words at least, en- 
deavored to substitute an authority equally 
divine and infallible. 

Catholics, on the contrary, hold with St 
Paul, that " faith cometh " not by reading, 
but " by hearing 99 (Rom. x. 17) ; that the gos- 
pel of Christ is to be learned from a divine, 
infallible living voice — the Catholic Church, 
which guarantees to every one not merely the 
written w T ord, but also the unwritten teach- 
ing of divine tradition (II. Thess. it. 13, 14). 

Let us not mistake the point at issue. 
Many write and talk as if there were ques- 
tion of the dignity or sacred character of the 
Bible ; as if, forsooth, Protestantism had foi 
the first time given it its due place of honor. 

But history is the witness how well the 
Catholic Church has ever defended the in- 
tegrity, historical value, canonicity, and in- 
spiration of the Scriptures, and their help- 
fulness and worth to the Christian people. The 
real question is : Is the Bible and the Bible 
alone the w r ay to find out the gospel of Christ ? 

The Catholic answers this question in a de- 
cided negative; for, 1st. If this fundamental 
principle of Protestantism were true, the Bible 
should record it somewhere. On the contrary, 
there is not one text in the Old Testament 



The Bible, 



<55 



or the New which declares any such prin- 
ciple, 

2d. Let us ask whether Protestantism has 
been consistent ? As a matter of fact, how 
many Protestants have learned the doctrines 
of Christ by independent Bible- reading ? In- 
deed, from the very beginning, in the endeavor 
to save themselves from the inevitable destruc- 
tion that follows every protest against divine 
truth, they have gone directly counter to their 
first principle, and have trusted to human 
creeds, confessions, catechisms, teachings from 
the pulpit and lessons in the Bible class. Each 
denomination has drawn up its own interpre- 
tation of the Bible, emphasizing some texts 
and utterly ignoring others, and has made the 
acceptance of this hutnan ? fallible interpreta- 
tion a condition of church-membership. 

3d. It is only by the divine authority of 
the Catholic Church that Christians know that 
the Scripture is the Word of God, and what 
books certainly belong to the Bible. 

The Bible was not written in English. How 
can a Protestant of to-day — learned or ignorant 
— know whether his version is a correct trans- 
lation, or a human travesty of God's word? 

The Bible nowhere points out the number o! 
books on the canon, and critical arguments can 
never afford the divine certainty that rational 
men demand before believing with divine faith, 



66 



The Question Box, 



The Protestant starts with the unproved as- 
sumption that the Bible is the inspired word 
of God. How, we ask, independently of a 
divine authority outside the Bible, can any one 
prove the internal, supernatural fact of divine 
inspiration ? 

In a word, the Bible is not its own witness. 
It is like a will without a signature or probate. 
Especially in our own day, when the modern 
Higher Criticism has made sad havoc with the 
old Protestant estimate of the Bible. Deny the 
Church's infallible witness, and lo ! the Bible 
is reduced to the level ot mere Oriental litera 
ture, full of errors and utterly devoid of divine 
inspiration. The Catholic Church alone guar- 
antees infallibly the authenticity of the Latin 
Vulgate, the contents of the Canon, and the 
inspiration of all the seventy-two books of 
Holy Writ. 

The Catholic Church gives the world the 
Bible, so that St. Augustine could rightly 
say in the fifth century s "I would not be- 
lieve the gospel unless moved thereto by 
the authority of ihe Church' 9 (" Contra Kpis, 
Fund.") 

4th. The Bible does not pretend to be a for- 
mulary of belief, as is a creed or catechism. 
There is nowhere in the New Testament a 
clear, methodical statement of the teachings 
of Christ. It w r as never intended as such. 



The Bible, 67 

The Epistles of St. Paul, for instance, were 
written as occasion arose to different local 
Churches, to settle disputes about dogma, to 
insist on certain Christian principles of moral- 
ity, to protest against pagan philosophy and 
pagan crimes, and to warn the first converts 
against Judaizers. 

The Bible was never intended to take the 
place of the living, infallible teacher, the 
Church, but was written to explain or to insist 
upon a doctrine already preached. 

How indeed could a dead and speechless 
book, that cannot be cross-questioned to settle 
doubts or decide controversies, be the exclu- 
sive and all-sufficient teacher of God's revela- 
tion. 

5th. The very nature of the Bible ought to 
prove to any thinking man the impossibility 
of its being the one safe method to find out 
what the Saviour taught. It is not a simple, 
clear- as- crystal volume that a little child may 
understand, although it ought to be so on 
Protestant principles, Luther declared that 
any one could understand the Bible — as long 
as his own interpretation was unquestioned 
(Wittenb. Opera, vol. ii. p. 474, a.d 3 1539), 
but once his authority was set aside by his 
own followers, the Bible became a most diffi- 
cult book! (Walch, vol. v,, 1652, 472, xiv 
1360; De Wette, iii. 61 ; Tischr. ii, c. 5, § 46 3 



68 



The Question Box, 



Jo Verres, "Luther: An Historical Portrait/ 9 
p* iii., et scq.) 

St. Peter speaks of the difficulties one meets 
with, especially in the epistles of St. Paul, 
i( in which are certain things hard to be under- 
stood ; which the unlearned and unstable wrest, 
as they do also the other scriptures, to their 
own destruction ' ' (II. Pet. iii, 16). 

Again, the Acts of the Apostles testify to 
the obscurity of that passage in Isaias (liii. 7, 8) 
which the eunuch of Queen Candace could not 
understand until Philip assured him that it re- 
ferred to the Passion of Jesus Christ, the Son 
of Gods "Thinkest thou that thou under- 
standest what thou readest ? Who said : And 
how can I, unless some man show me ? 99 (Acts 
viii. 30, 31). > ^ 

Indeed, when one reflects for a moment what 
the Bible is — a number of sublime, mysteri- 
ous books, written thousands of years ago by 
men of a different civilization and tongue ; and 
especially when one knows that it deals with 
God's revelation of doctrine and morals to His 
people, he must needs expect to find "things 
hard to be understood.' 1 

Many questions face the reader of the New 
Testament, and demand a divine authoritative 
answer, if men are to know with certainty the 
gospel of Christ. Is this a counsel or a com- 
mandment? (John xiii, 14.) Is this passage lit- 



The Bible 69 

eral or figurative ? (John vi.; Matt. xxvi. 26.) 
Has an apostolic priesthood the pardoning 
power? (John xx. 23,) Is Christ the Son of 
God? (John xiv. 28), etc. 

If the Scriptures were so clear, why then did 
the principle of private interpretation bring 
forth so many denominations, each claiming to 
know the true meaning of God's word ? 

If Jesus had promised the wonderful gift of 
divine insight to every individual, as some have 
arbitrarily pretended, well and good. But 
there is not the slightest evidence of any such 
promise. On the contrary, the contradictions 
of the various human societies in the world to- 
day absolutely point to their origin, — man's 
private and fallible opinion, and not to the in- 
fallible guidance of the Holy Spirit of Trutho 

The Bible is not so much printer's ink and 
paper; not the ignorance, errors, and preju- 
dices of men read into the Old or New Testa- 
ment ; not a babel of discordant opinions as to 
what Christ our Lord meant; but the one di- 
vine, infallible voice of God to his people 9 
known with divine, infallible certainty to eveiy 
creature by the divine interpreter and custo- 
dian of Holy Writ — the one Church of JestJU* 
Christ. , * N 

6th. Is It not strange that if Christianity 
were to be learned from the Bible only, that 
Christ Himself never wrote a line, nor eve; 



The Question Box, 



commanded His Apostles to write. Only five 
of the twelve did write ; for their divine commis- 
sion was not to write, but to preach and teach 
the gospel (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; 
Luke x. 16 ; Acts i. 8). They wrote merely to 
confirm their teaching, never giving the slight- 
est intimation that Christianity was to rest 
solely on a Bible foundation. 

7th, Historically, we are certain that the 
Bible has never been the way to find out 
Christ, » 

For just as the Jewish religion existed before 
the Old Testament, so the Christian religion 
existed before a line of the New Testament 
was written. The Church came first and not 
the Bible, and there is not the slightest evi- 
dence to show the substitution, in later times, 
of a dead book for the living voice of Christ's 
Church. 

8th, Again, it has ever been practically im- 
possible for men $ generally,, to find out Christ 
from the Bible only, In the first days of 
Christianity the poverty and illiteracy of the 
primitive Christians (I. Cor. i. 26-28), the con- 
tinued pagan persecutions, the rarity of .manu- 
scripts, the doubts existing about the canon 
until the end of the fourth century, the spread 
of apocryphal and heretical versions, — prove to 
evidence that they learned, as Christ and His 
Apostles declared all Christians must learn, not 



The Bible, 



72 



from a book they did not possess, not from a 
book they could not read, but from the voice 
of a divine, infallible teaching authority. 

Indeed, it is as futile to speak of " Bible 
Christians' ' in the days of primitive Chris- 
tianity, when men died for Christ by the thou- 
sands, as to speak of the Emperor Nero or 
Decius travelling about in a Pullman palace 
car, their families going down the Appian Way 
in an automobile, their generals using smoke- 
less powder, Maxim guns, or Mauser bullets* 
or their ministers reading telegraphic de- 
spatches from all parts of the Empire. Let us 
not picture the Roman Christian of the third 
century with a ninety- eight-cent edition of the 
Protestant Bible. 

What, again, of the millions of Christians 
all down the centuries who possessed no copies 
of the Scriptures, or who could not read them, 
or understand them, if they did? What of the 
illiterates of our own day? — when, as W. S. 
Lilly says, " the average man is as well fitted to 
interpret the Bible as he is to lecture on the 
Hegelian philosophy, or to settle fine points of 
Hindu law." 

< 9th. Finally, if the Bible were the only way 
to find out Christ, individual Bible reading 
should of itself have tended to maintain and 
spread Christianity. Surely candid men must 
fcdmit that it has not done so. 



72 



The Qitestion Box, 



il The divisions of modern sects afford ss 
strong argument," writes Palmer ( Protestant) 8 
"for the necessity of submission to the judg- 
ment of the universal Church ; for surely it is 
impossible that Christ could have designed His 
disciples to break into a hundred different sect£ 
contending with each other on every doctrine 
of religion. It is impossible, I say, that thig 
S3'Stem of endless division can be Christian. It 
cannot but be the result of some deep rooted; 
some universal error, some radically false prin- 
ciple, which is common to all these sectSo 
And what principle do they hold in common 
except the right of each individual to oppose 
his judgment to that of all the Church? The 
principle, then, must be utterly false and un- 
founded" (''The Church," vol. ii. p. 85). 

I/uther bears witness to the destructive char- 
acter of his principle of private judgment ira 
his own day : " This one will not hear of bap- 
tism, that one denies the sacrament, another 
puts a world between this and the last dayj 
some teach that Christ is not God ; some say 
this, some say that; there are about as many 
sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel 
is so rude but when he has dreams and fan= 
cies he thinks himself inspired by the Holy 
Ghost, and must be a prophet" (De Wette; 
vol. iii. p. 61). 

Catholics of the sixteenth century prophesied 



The Bible. 73 

the result, and any student of twentieth cen- 
tury Protestantism will acknowledge they were 
right. Men have appealed to the Bible to 
justify every denial of Christian teaching, until 
111 our own day the descendants of Luther are 
either indifferentists, or utter unbelievers. The 
orthodox Protestant to-day finds himself power- 
less before the onslaught of the modern de- 
structive rationalistic Higher Criticism, and is 
inevitably drifting either toward Rome or Ra= 
tionalism. 

You teach that we must find out the teachings 
of Jesus from the Church* Did He not says 
" Search the Scriptures, for iu them ye think ye 
have eternal life, and they are they which testify 
of me" ? (John v. 39), 

These w r ords of our Lord by no means imply 
an obligation on all men to read the Bible in 
order to find out His teaching. He was speak° 
ing to the unbelieving doctors of the law* 
whom neither His words nor works had con- 
vinced, They were well versed in the Old 
Testament — not a word of the New Testa- 
ment was written—and held it as the word 
of God. Christ tells them, therefore, to read 
carefully those passages of the Old Testament 
that testify of Him as the promised Messias, 
Thus Catholics say to Protestants to-days Read 
carefully those passages of the New Testament 



74 The Question Box. 

that declare the Catholic Church the divine,, 
infallible teacher of Christ's revelation. 

The argument of Protestants from this text, 
if clearly understood, is evidently unsoundo 
It runs thus s Christ told the Jews to searcii 
the Old Testament for proofs of His Messianic 
mission. Therefore, the New Testament is to 
be searched in order to find out all He taught \ 
This is logic with a vengeance. 

Did not the Bible praise the Bereans for theli 
§tudy of the Bible (Acts xvii. n), "searched tb£ 
Scriptures daily, whether those things were 

9i This earnest toil Oi the Bereans was evi- 
dently one of verification, not one of construe^ 
tion They did not think to find the truth by 
reading Scripture without note or comment, and 
building up each for himself a system oj faiths 
morals* and worship. They went to the Scrip- 
tures full of what they had just heard 3 They 
searched diligently to see whether matters 
really stood as St. Paul had represented them 
in his sermon, whether he had quoted the 
Scriptures correctly, and whether the inter- 
pretation he had given was a plausible; m 
probable, a convincing one" (Bridgett, 44 The 
Ritual of the New Testament/* p. 13) 



Divine Tradition, 



7f 



DIVINK TRADITION. 

By what right do you teach doctrines not 
found in the Bible? Does not this put the 
Church abov the word of God ? Did not Christ 
rebuke the Pharisees for M teaching doctrines and 
commandments of men" (Matte xv* 9) and 
«« making void the word of God by your own 
tradition "? (Markvii. 13)^ 

Because the origin of our faith is not the 
Bible alone, but the Church which gives us 
both the written and the unwritten word. St. 
Paul speaks of * 4 traditions learned by word 
and by epistle " (II t Thess. ii t 14). Christ 
rebuked the Pharisees for setting up their own 
views, viz., regarding the Sabbath, as part of 
the divine revelation. Still the Jews held by 
divine tradition many truths that were not set 
forth in the Scriptures, y. g. y the canon and 
inspiration of the Old Testament. 

So in the New Law, Catholics believe some 
things not in the Scriptures, although wholly 
in accord with them, because of the infallible 
witness of the Church as to their divine or 
apostolic origin. Why do Protestants accept 
the Scriptures as inspired ? Why do they 
honor the first day of the w r eek instead of 
the seventh? Why do they baptize children? 
Contrary to their principles, they must look 
outside the Bible to the voice of tradition, 



76 



The Question Box. 



which is not human, but divine, because guar- 
anteed by the divine, infallible witness of the 
Catholic Church. 

Why are there more books in your Bible than 
in ours? Why do Catholics consider the Apoc- 
rypha as Scripture ? Why don't all Christians 
have the same number of books in their Bible ? 

Catholics are infallibly certain that all the 
books of their Bible are inspired, because of 
the divine, infallible witness of the Church of 
Jesus Christ, voiced by the Councils of Trent 
(1545-65) and the Vatican (1869-70). Protest- 
ants, lacking this divine, infallible teacher, 
can never be certain what books form the 
canon of Holy Scripture. 

The Hebrew canon of the Palestinian Jews 
differed from that of the Greek Septuagint of 
the Alexandrian Jews, which contained in ad- 
dition the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I. and II. Machabees. 
With regard to the New Testament, the early 
Christians greatly doubted as to the canonicity 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, II. Peter, II. 
and III. John, St. James, St. Jude, and the 
Apocalypse. 

Other books, now reckoned by the Catholic 
Church as apocrypha, were read in the early 
Christian churches, and deemed by many a 
part of Holy Writ; v. g., the Epistle of Bar- 



The Bible. 



77 



nabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles 
of Clement. 

Amid this great doubt and uncertainty re- 
garding the sacred canon, the Catholic has 
the only way of attaining certainty — the in- 
fallible voice of the divine authority estab- 
lished by Christ. The Protestant, on the other 
hand, is totally at loss, for he has no standard 
of judging. So, inconsistently, he rejects the 
seven doubtful books of the Old Testament, 
and accepts the seven doubtful books of the 
New. Is this reasonable ? 

Remember, too, that the Council of Trent 
merely repeated the same list of canonical 
books enumerated as early as the fourth cen- 
tury in the Council of Hippo (a d. 393) and the 
two Councils of Carthage (a.d. 397 and 419). 

Is it not strange that if the Septuagint ver- 
sion enumerated books not belonging to the 
canon, Christ and His Apostles should have 
continually cited it? For some 300 out of the 
350 quotations from the Old Testament found 
in the New are taken from the Greek of this 
version, which contained all the books of the 
Catholic Bible of to-day. 

In the sixteenth century L,uthe r , on the 
Protestant principle of private judgment, re- 
jected the Epistle of St. James as " a straw- 
epistle/' and said of the Apocalypse : " I find 
many things defective in this book, which make 



78 



The Question Box. 



me consider it neither Apostolic nor prophetic " 
(Introduction to the New Testament of 1522 ; 
cf. J. Verres, "I^uther," p. 113). 

To-day the rationalistic descendants of I,u- 
ther claim the same right of private judgment 
to reject not merely one or seven books, but the 
entire canon of the Old and New Testament, 
denying its divine inspiration, and put the 
Bible on the level of mere Oriental literature. 
Protestantism has no rational, certain argument 
whereby to defend its canon. (" Canon of the 
New Testament/' Dubliji Review, Oct., 1893; 
T. Mullen, " Canon of the Old Testament"; 
Gigot, " General Introduction to Holy Scrip- 
ture " ; Loisy, " Histoire du Canon de PAncien 
Testament " ; Loisy, " Histoire du Canon de 
Nouveau Testament"; Vigoroux, " Diction- 
naire de la Bible.") 

What do Catholics mean by the inspiration of 
the Scriptures? Must Catholics believe that 
God inspired every word? 

" Biblical inspiration may be described as a 
divine and positive influence exerted upon 
certain men for the purpose of transmitting 
truth to others, and in such a manner that the 
books composed by the sacred writers have 
God for their author" (Gigot, 11 Biblical Lec- 
tures," p. 351). 

Catholics believe that ' * the books of the Old 



The Bible. 



79 



and the New Testament are to be received as 
sacred and canonical, in their integrity, and 
with all their parts, as they are enumerated in 
the decrees of the said Council (Trent), and 
are contained in the ancient Latin edition of 
the Vulgate, . . . because, having been 
written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
they have God for their author' 9 (Vatican, 
Sess. III. ch. ii.) The Bible is, therefore, in- 
spired not merely because it contains the Word 
of God, but because it is in a true sense the 
Word of God. 

As regards God's share in the production 
of the Scriptures, Cardinal Manning w r rites : 
1 1 Inspiration, in the special and technical 
sense, includes the three following operations 
of the Holy Ghost upon the sacred writers : (i) 
the impulse to put in writing the matter which 
God wills they should record ; (2) the sug- 
gestion of the matter to be written, whether by 
revelation of truths not previously known, or 
only by the promptings of those things which 
were within the writer's knowledge ; (3) the 
assistance which excludes liability to error in 
writing all things, whatever may be suggested 
to them by the Spirit of God, to be written" 
(" The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost," 
p. 161). 

As regards man's share in the production of 
Holy Writ, Catholics believe that, " though 



8o 



The Question Box. 



acting as co-agents under God's special in- 
fluence, the inspired writers are no mere pas- 
sive instruments, but bear themselves under 
the divine action as truly intelligent, active, 
and free agents'' (Gigot, " General Introduc- 
tion to the Holy Scriptures/ ' p. 546). The 
sacred writers may have been unaware of the 
fact of their inspiration, they may commit to 
writing what they already know from personal 
knowledge, pre-existing documents, eye-wit- 
nesses, and other aids (L,uke i. 3; John xix. 
35; II. Mach. ii< 27) ; their literary style and 
wording may be their own (II. Mach. xv. 
39, 40) ; hence verbal variances between in- 
spired writers (Matt. v. 3 ; I,uke vi. 20 ; Matt, 
xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19; Mark xiv. 22, and 
I. Cor. xi. 23). The dictation, therefore, of 
each word— verbal inspiration — is by no means 
essential to a true notion of inspiration 
(Schanz, "A Christian Apology," vol. i. cb, 
xiii.) 

How do you know what are the inspired books 
of Scripture? 

By the divine, infallible testimony of the true 
Church of God, which is the only completely 
adequate and rational ground for a divine faith 
in all the Sacred Scriptures. As the in- 
spiration of the sacred books is a divine opera- 
tion not necessarily known even to the mind 



The Bible. 



81 



that is acted upon by the Holy Spirit, it neces- 
sarily follows that the testimony of God Him- 
self is required to make men perfectly sure of 
its existence ; but this divine testimony comes 
to their knowledge, and is the absolute ground 
of their faith> only by the voice of that in- 
fallible and living Church which He has com- 
manded us to hear" (Gigot, "Biblical Lec- 
tures," p. 368; Wiseman, "Doctrines and 
Practices of the Catholic Church,' ' Lec- 
ture II.) s 

Protestants, rejecting the divine] authority of 
the living voice of God's Church, generally 
fall back upon intrinsic proofs for inspiration, 
namely, the superhuman structure and con- 
tents of the sacred books, their inspiring and 
elevating character, their organic unity, their 
moral effect upon the earnest reader, and the 
like. Other Protestants, realizing the inade- 
quacy of these merely internal criteria, appeal 
to the authority of Christ and the Apostles ; 
but they fail to see that our Lord's testimony, 
given previous to the writing of the book, — 
which he nowhere directed to be written or 
even named or suggested, — cannot be made to 
apply to the New Testament ; and that al- 
though an argument may be deduced from the 
fact that a book was written by an Apostle, 
still such reasoning will not apply to all the 
books of the New Testament ; for instance, the 



82 



The Question Box. 



Axts, the Gospels of St. Mark and St. I^uke, 
etc. (Gigot, ibid., pp. 355-3 68 )- 

No wonder, then, that Protestantism with its 
vague and varying views regarding inspiration, 
its narrowing of inspiration to certain parts of 
the Bible, its admission of error in the sacred 
writings, its inadequate proofs for the fact of 
inspiration and the right of a book to be on the 
canon, is powerless to resist the attacks of the 
rationalistic Higher Criticism, which endeavors 
to strip the Word of God of its divine char- 
acter. Many lovers of the Bible have come 
to recognize the Catholic Church as its only 
adequate and rational defender. No matter 
what difficulties may be raised by the .unbe- 
liever against the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
Catholics can always ground their certain faith 
in them on the infallible authority of God's 
Church. It is the old argument of St. Augus- 
tine : 1 ' I would not believe the Gospel, unless 
the authority of the Church moved me there- 
to. " (Gigot, " General Introduction to the 
Scriptures/'; Breen, "Introduction to the 
Study of Holy Scripture/') 

Why does the Catholic Church withhold the 
Bible from the laity? 

Why are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible ? 

Why are not Catholics allowed to read the 
Protestant Bible? 



The Bible. 



83 



Did not the Scriptures practically perish in the 
dark ages owing to the disregard of the clergy 
for the pure word of God ? 

Was not Luther the first to translate the Bible 
into the language of the people? 

It is a calumny arising from ignorance or 
malice to declare the Catholic Church was ever 
an enemy to the devout reading of the Word 
of God. 

In the Middle Ages the monks and nuns 
copied out the Bible word for word from Gene- 
sis to the Apocalypse, the clergy preached from 
it continually, lectured on it in their schools and 
universities, and often prepared from its pages 
special prayer-books for the people. "There 
is a good deal of popular misapprehension about 
the way in which the Bible was regarded in 
the Middle Ages," writes Dr. Cutts (Prot- 
estant; "Turning Points of English History/ J 
p. 200). Some people think that it was very 
little read, even by the clergy ; whereas the fact 
is that the sermons of the mediaeval preachers 
are more full of Scriptural quotations and allu- 
sions than an} sermons in these days; and 
the writers on other subjects are so full of 
Scriptural allusion that it is evident their 
minds were saturated with Scriptural diction. 
We have the authority of Sir Thomas More 
("Dial." iii. 14) for saying that "the whole 
Bible was, long before Wyclif's days, by vir- 



84 



The Question Box. 



tuous ani well-learned men translated into the 
English tongue, and by good and goodly peo- 
ple with devotion and soberness well and rever- 
ently read.'* 

Dean Maitland (Protestant) shows clearly' the 
reverence of the Middle Ages for God's holy 
Book ("The Dark Ages," pp. 208-241), and 
answering the calumnies of certain anti-Catho- 
lic controversialists, says: " I do not recollect 
any instance in which it is recorded that the 
Scriptures, or any part of them, were treated 
with indignity, or with less than profound re- 
spect." 

"The notion that the people in the Middle 
Ages," writes another fair-minded Protestant, 
' 1 did not read their Bibles ... is not simply 
a mistake ; it is one of the most ludicrous and 
grotesque blunders " {Church Quarterly Review \ 
Oct., 1879). i 

Another strange bit of old-time contro- 
versy is the pretended discovery by Luther of 
the hitherto unknown Bible, at Erfurth, in 
1503, and his first giving it to the people in 
the vernacular in 1534. This calumny, rest- 
ing on the authority of D'Aubigne, in his 
unscholarly history of the Reformation, has 
been given the lie direct by honest Protestants 
like Dean Maitland ("The Dark Ages," pp. 
475-6, 506-514). 

What are the facts? "Before the first 



The Bible. 



85 



Protestant version was sent forth into the 
world there appeared 84 printed editions of 
Holy Writ in the ancient languages ; 62 in 
Hebrew, of which 12 were of the Old Testa- 
ment entire, and 50 of selected portions ; and 
22 in Greek, of which 3 were of the Old 
Testament, 12 of the New Testament, and 
7 of separate portions of the Scriptures. In 
the L,atin, which occupied a special posi- 
tion as being the universal language of 
the educated men of the time, there were 
published 343 editions, of which 148 were 
of the entire Bible, 62 of the New Testament, 
and 133 of separate books of the inspired 
writings. 

; "In the modern languages . . . there 
were issued 198 editions, of which 104 were 
of the entire Bible, comprising 20 in Italian, 
26 in French, 19 in Flemish, 2 in Spanish, 6 in 
Bohemian, 1 in Sclavonic, and 30 in German, 
and 94 of single portions of Holy Writ, con- 
sisting chiefly of copies of the New Testament 
and the Psalms. In all, including the Poly- 
glot printed at the cost of Cardinal Ximeues, 
626 editions of the Bible and portions of the 
Bible, of which 198 were in the languages of 
the laity, had issued from the press with the 
sanction and at the instance of the Church, 
in countries where she reigned supreme, before 
Luther's German version of the Bible appeared 



86 



The Question Box. 



in 1534" (Gigot, "Biblical Lectures," pp. 311, 
312). 

The Catholic Church has never prohibited 
the reading of the Bible in the original texts, 
or in the approved Latin Vulgate version. 

The Jews and heretics in the early Church, 
the Albigenses in the thirteenth century, the 
Wyclifites in the fifteenth, the Protestants of 
the sixteenth sought to defend their errors by 
perverting the sacred text. 

Naturally, therefore, as its guardian and 
interpreter, the Catholic Church, out of zeal 
for the pure word of God, was in duty bound 
to warn her children against human traves- 
ties thereof in the vernacular. The local and 
universal laws against Bible reading in the 
vernacular except with proper safeguards — 
v.g., the synod of Toulouse (1229 a.d.), of 
Tarragona (1233 a.d.), of Oxford (1408 a.d.), 
the rules of the Index (1574 a.d., 1897 a.d.), 
the laws of Benedict XIV. (1757 a.d.), Pius 
VIII. (1829), etc., are evident proofs of her 
love of Holy Scriptures. The same principle 
guides the state in passing her laws against 
counterfeiters. Would you say our country is 
opposed to the use of good money because she 
does not permit unlimited counterfeiting? 

A study of the English Protestant versions — 
Tyndale's New Testament, Cranmer's Great 
Bible (1539 a.d.), the Bishop's Bible (1568 



The Bible. 



87 



a.d.), the Authorized Version (1611), and the 
Revised Version (1881) — will show a record of 
grave omissions, additions, and changes in the 
sacred text. 

Consider, for example, the changes in the 
King James version which affect some of the 
essential doctrines of Christianity; v.g-. y the 
priesthood (Acts xiv. 23 ; xv. 2 ; Tit. i. 5 ; 
I. Tim. v. 17, 19; James v. 14), the epis- 
copate (Acts xx. 28), and the fact that it 
omits seven entire books of the Old Testa- 
ment, and parts of Daniel and Esther. 

The inaccuracy of Luther's German trans- 
lation was pointed out by his Catholic con- 
temporary Emser, and Bunsen says there 
are at least 3,000 faulty translations (Verres, 
" Luther," p. 111; Audin's " Life of Luther," 
vol. ii.) Indeed, Luther never scrupled to 
change the text, if the change would enable 
him to Lutheranize St. Paul; v.g., Rom. iii. 
20, 28, where he changes the sense entirely 
by adding the words only and alone. 

The Catholic Church, therefore, encourages 
the reading of translations of the Bible in the 
vernacular provided they bear the imprimatur 
of the bishop, and are edited with explana- 
tory notes. On the title-page of many Eng- 
lish Catholic Bibles one may read the letter 
of Pius VI. to the Archbishop of Florence 
(April, 1778): 



83 



The Question Box. 



"At a time that a vast number of bad 
books, which grossly attack the Catholic re- 
ligion, are circulated even among the un- 
learned, to the great destruction of souls, you 
judge exceedingly well that the faithful should 
be excited to the reading of the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; for these are the most abundant sources, 
which ought to be left open to every one, to 
draw from them purity of morals and of doc- 
trine, to eradicate the errors which are so 
widely disseminated in these corrupt times/ ' 

Pius VII. wrote in the same strain to the 
English vicars-apostolic "to encourage their 
people to read the Holy Scriptures ; for noth- 
ing can be more useful, more consoling, and 
more animating, because they serve to con- 
firm the faith, to support the hope, and to 
influence the charity of the true Christian." 

Leo XIII. said in his late encyclical (1893) 
on the Bible : " The solicitude of the apostolic 
office naturally urges, and even compels us, 
not only to desire that this great source of 
Catholic revelation should be made safely and 
abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus 
Christ, but also not to suffer any attempt to 
defile or corrupt it." 

Indeed, on December 3, 1898, Pope L,eo 
granted an indulgence to all Catholics who 
will spend fifteen minutes a day in the devout 
reading of the Gospels of Jesus Christ. 



The Bible. 



S 9 



Why did the monks chain the Bible in the 
Middle Ages? 

To save it from thieves. Why do people 
chain a cup to the town-pump, or a city direc- 
tory to a desk in a drug store ? This is readily 
understood when one considers how valuable 
a copy of the Scriptures w T as in those days, 
owing to the fact that they w r ere copied out 
w T ord for word by the monks. Whole libra- 
ries were chained in this way, both in Eng- 
land and on the Continent. What great ignor- 
ance of history is shown by those who imagine 
that "the chained Bible" implied that the 
Bible was only accessible to a few monks, 
w T ho were under orders from the Pope to keep 
it from the people as far as possible ! How 
prejudice will read into facts its own false 
inferences ! 

Why are Catholics opposed to the reading of 
the Bible in public schools ? 

One good reason is because the Protestant 
version used in the public schools is a faulty 
translation of the Word of God, and leaves 
out a number of books in the Old Testament. 
Moreover, Catholics object to its being read, 
and often commented on, by men and women 
of every creed and no creed, who often know 
little or nothing of its meaning, and even re- 
gard it at times as a mere human book. 



9o 



The Question Box. 



CREATION IN SIX DAYS. 

Must Catholics believe that the world was 
created in six days ? 

Not at all. The Catholic Church has de- 
cided nothing dogmatically about the Mosaic 
cosmogony, so that Catholics are allowed the 
greatest liberty in interpreting the meaning of 
the six days. 

The purpose of the writer of Genesis is to 
declare the great fact of the creation of the 
world, and to lead the Jews to honor the Sab- 
bath day (Exod. xxxi. 16). The chief theo- 
ries regarding the six days are : 

i st. The allegorical theory of St. Augustine 
(" De Gen. ad kit.," iv. v. 26) and St. Thomas 
("De Pot.," q. 2, a. 4), that the whole act 
of creation occupied but an instant of time. 

2d. The literal theory of days of twenty- 
four hours each, which is now generally re- 
jected (Veith, Bosizio). 

3d. The periodic theory that the " days " are 
indefinitely long epochs, which allow for all 
the data required by geology and paleontology 
(Hettinger, Holzammer, Pianciani). 

4th. The revelation theory that the days are 
so many visions vouchsafed Moses by God, 
with no reference to time whatsoever (Von 
Hummelauer) . 

5th. The idealistic theory, which regards the 



Creation in Six Days. 



91 



whole account of the creation of the world as 
a hymn in which various portions of creation 
are commemorated on the days of the week. 
(Bishop Clifford, pp. 280-343, G. P. Putnam 
& Sons, 1870; G. Molloy, " Geology and 
Revelation"; Bishop Clifford, Dublin Review, 
April, 1883; Mgr. Meignan, " Le Monde et 
1' Homme primitif" ; Arduin, "L,e Religion en 
face de la Science ";Vigouroux, " Manuel Bib- 
lique," vol. i.) 

Who was Cain's wife ? (Gen. iv. 17). If Adam, 
Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only people in the 
world, where did Cain get his wife ? 

Cain most probably married his own sister, 
or his niece. Cain and Abel had many brothers 
and sisters, as we learn from Gen. v. 4 : " And 
the days of Adam after he begot Seth were 
eight hundred years. And he begot sons and 
daughters." This query, which is met with 
universally on the non-Catholic missions, arises 
from one of two difficulties : 1st, the morality 
of an apparently incestuous marriage ; or, 2d, 
the denial of the unity of the race. 

With regard to the first, St. Augustine an- 
swers this very question nearly fifteen centuries 
ago: "As, therefore, the human race, sub- 
sequently to the first marriage of the man who 
was made of dust, and his wife who was made 
out of his side, required the union of male and 



92 



The Question Box. 



female, in order that it might multiply; and 
as there were no human beings except those 
who had been born of these two, men took 
their sisters for wives ; an act which was as 
certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient 
days, as afterwards it was condemned by the 
prohibitions of religion " (" The City of God," 
book xv. ch. xvi.) 

The moral principles involved are plain to 
any student of Catholic ethics. Some actions 
are so intrinsically evil and opposed to the 
natural law, that no power, not even God, 
can permit them for any reason whatsoever — 
v£-. y blasphemy, lying, etc. Other actions 
against nature are evil because of the evil 
consequences that result, unless Gcd by a 
special providence intervene to prevent. In 
this class must be put the marriage of brother 
and sister. Nature itself vetoes such marriages 
as utterly subversive of all domestic and social 
morality. This was felt even by the pagan 
Roman, although the Egyptians and the Athen- 
ians permitted such marriages. No human 
power — no church — could grant a dispensation in 
such a case, but God the L,ord and Creator of 
all things could permit such marriages in the 
beginning to propagate the human race, there 
being no other way to do so save by miracu- 
lous intervention. 

The second difficulty likewise dates from the 



The Age of the Human Race. 93 



Preadamites of the seventeenth century, who 
held that Adam was the father of the Jewish 
people, but not of the pagans. This theory is 
in direct contradiction to the Scriptures (Gen. 
ii. 5, 20; iii. 20; Wis. x. 1.; Acts xvii. 26; 
Rom. v. 12), which expressly declares the race 
descended from Adam and Eve, especially as 
set forth in the dogmas of original sin. For a 
complete discussion of the subject, and answer 
to the objections brought forward by unbe- 
lievers, read Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique," 
n. 301; "L,es L,ivres Saints, M vol. iii. ch. 5; 
Guibert, "Origin of Species," ch. v. 

In the King James version it is said that 
Cain went into the land of Nod and there knew 
his wife ; but this is spurious Scripture. 



THE AGE OF THE HUMAN RACE. 

Must Catholics believe that the human race 
dates from the year 4004 B. C? Does not modern 
science give the lie direct to the Biblical chronol- 
ogy with regard to the antiquity of man ? 

By no means. Catholics are perfectly free to 
form their own opinion upon this question, 
which has never been defined by the Church. 

The Abbe Moigno writes (" Splendeurs de la 
Foi," ii. p. 612) : " The exact date of the crea- 
tion of man, of his first appearance upon the 



94 



The Question Box. 



earth, remains entirely uncertain or unknown ; 
but there would be some rashness in carrying it 
back beyond 8,000 years. 5 y 

Another distinguished scholar, Abbe Hamard 
{" La Science et V Apologetique Chretienne," p. 
31), sa)'s: "That it is necessary to adopt the 
chronology of the Septuagint, as affording us 
notably more time, we are convinced ; but we 
fail to see any reason for carrying this chronol- 
ogy beyond the 8,000 or 10,000 years which it 
affords us as a maximum." 

Father Zahin, after a careful discussion of the 
question in four articles of the American Catho- 
lic Quarterly (1893, PP- 225-248, 562-588, 719- 
734; 1894, pp. 260-272), thus sums up: "The 
evidence we have examined regarding the age 
of our race proves one thing, and proves it most 
conclusively ; and that is, that the question we 
have been discussing is far from being definitely 
answered by Scripture or science, and according 
to present indications it seems improbable that 
we shall ever have a certain answer regarding 
this much controverted topic. The testimony 
of astronomy does not, as such, make either for 
or against the Biblical chronology, because 
astronomy as a science was not cultivated until 
some thousands of years after the advent of man 
on the earth. The testimony of history, and 
especially the history which takes us back 
farthest — the history of Egypt, Assyria, Chal- 



The Age of the Human Race. 95 



dea, and Babylonia — admirably corroborates the 
testimony of the Bible concerning the antiquity 
of man. The sciences of linguistics, ethnology, 
and physiology have discovered nothing that is 
incompatible with the acceptance of the chro- 
nology of Scripture as understood by our most 
competent apologists. The statements of geol- 
ogy and prehistoric archaeology are so vague 
and conflicting and extravagant that nothing 
definite can be gathered from them beyond the 
apparently indisputable fact that the age of our 
species is greater than the advocates of the He- 
brew and Samaritan texts of the Bible have 
been wont to admit. It may, however, be as- 
serted positively that no certain geologic or 
archaeologic evidence so far adduced is irre- 
concilable w 7 ith archaeology that we are war- 
ranted in deducing from the known facts and 
geological records of the Book of Books." 
{American Catholic Quarterly , vol. xix. pp. 269, 
270; Sir J. W. Dawson, 11 Modern Science in 
Bible Lands Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique,*' 
vol. i.; "L,es I^ivres Saints," vol. iiL) 



96 The Question Box. 



VICIOUS CIRCLE. 

You Catholics prove the Church by the Bible, 
and then, reversing the process, prove the Bible 
by the Church. Is not this reasoning in a 
circle ? 

If we proved the divine authority of the 
Church from the inspired Scriptures, and then 
proved the inspiration of the Scriptures from 
the divine authority of the Church, we should 
indeed be faulty in our logic. But such is not 
the Catholic position, as fair-minded Protestants 
like Palmer readily grant ("The Church/ ' 
vol. ii. p. 63). 

The average Protestant does not seem to 
realize that the historical character of the New 
Testament is totally separate from the fact of its 
inspiration. He assumes without proof that 
the Bible is God's word, although the unbe- 
liever will tell him that is to be proved abso- 
lutely, before a man can back an argument with 
a Bible text. 

The Catholic carefully distinguishes between 
the historical value of the New Testament, 
which is a matter of evidence, and the divine 
inspiration, which demands a divine witness. 
The Catholic proves by mere critical arguments 
— just as he would prove a book of Caesar or 
Tacitus — that the New Testament Scriptures 
are genuine and authentic documents of the 



i 



Vicious Circle. 



97 



first century, which relate how Jesus Christ, 
who claimed and proved Himself to be the Son 
of God, established in the world a divine, au- 
thoritative, and infallible teacher, to teach His 
gospel and pardon sin in His name until the 
end of the world. Having proved this by rea- 
son, the Catholic accepts without question the 
divine, infallible teaching of this representative 
of Christ, the Catholic Church, on matters of 
faith and morality ; among these teachings is 
the divine, internal fact of Bible inspiration, 
which could never be known by textual criti- 
cism, human traditions, or prayerful study of 
the Word of God. 

In a word, therefore, the Church is proved on 
the historical authority of the New Testament ; 
but the historical value of the New Testament 
is not proved by the Church ; therefore there is 
no fallacy in our reasoning. 

Indeed, all Catholics know that their Church 
was well established, and that her claims were 
acknowledged by thousands of Christians — 
converts from Judaism and paganism — before a 
single line of the New Testament was written, 
and that many martyrs died before the books of 
the New Testament were gathered together, 
once for all, at the close of the fourth century. 

The Church could be proved, then, without 
the Bible; so likewise to-day, if there were no 
Bible in the world, she would bear witness to 



9 8 



The Question Box. 



Christ by her unity, holiness, catholicity, 
and apostolicity (Wiseman, "Doctrines of the 
Church, " Lecture III., p. 62, et seq.) 



THE CHURCH. 

What are the conditions of entrance into the 
Catholic Church ? 

Must a convert to your Church be baptized 
again, and confess the sins of a lifetime? 

The Catholic Church, ia accordance with the 
teaching of the Scriptures, requires of all adults 
who seek admittance into her one true fold the 
repentance of all past sin, the detestation of all 
past error, and the firm, certain belief in all the 
doctrines taught by Christ. "He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved". (Mark xvi. 
16); "Do penance and be baptized" (Acts 
ii. 38)0 

If a convert is absolutely sure of his baptism, 
he cannot be rebaptized, but is bound to con- 
fess all grievous sins committed after baptism. 
If a Protestant is uncertain about his former 
baptism — a frequent case in our day of lax 
Christian views and practice — he is baptized 
conditionally, with the form : "If thou art not 
baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." The sacrament of penance is also 



The Church, 



99 



given conditionally, so that a convert is certain 
of the forgiveness of sins through one sacrament 
or the other. 

A convert is obliged to study carefully the 
doctrines of the catechism, so that he may have 
an accurate knowledge of Catholic teaching, 
and be able intelligently to take the oath of the 
profession of faith: " With a sincere heart, 
therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest 
and abjure every error, heresy, and sect, op^ 
posed to the said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 
Roman Church. So help me God, and these 
His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand.* ' 

Should not a person live and die in the Church 
of their baptism, especially if they have sworn 
to do so? 

I have met a number of Lutherans in the 
Northwest who told me that they had taken an 
oath to die Lutherans. Such an oath to wor- 
ship Christ in a false Christianity, which He 
as the God of truth necessarily condemns, is not 
binding, once a person discovers that the Catho- 
lic Church is the only Church possessing the 
entire gospel of the Saviour. He must aban- 
don his heresy and schism once he discovers 
them, else salvation is impossible. 

Such a one does not hate his own parents and 
other relations, as some simple souls are taught 
to believe, but rather loves them the more, and 



IOO 



The Question Box. 



prays until death for their conversion. Natu- 
rally he will be anxious for them, knowing that 
possibly they may be sinfully resisting the 
grace of God which would bring them into the 
true fold. How strangely intolerant are some 
parents, who contrary to that first principle of 
their Protestantism — private judgment — perse- 
cute with bitter hatred their own flesh and 
blood who, obedient ta conscience and to God's 
grace, embrace the religion of their forefathers, 
in the old Church of Jesus Christ. Error is 
never consistent. 

" The religion of my parents is good enough 
for me," say some. If you were born in pov- 
erty, would you think the condition of your 
parents precluded all notion of your bettering 
your condition ? So, in like manner, once con- 
vinced of the poverty of the partial gospel you 
possess, as a rational man you are bound to 
embrace " the unsearchable riches " of the true 
gospel of Christ (Eph. iii. 8). 

Is it true that Catholics are bound to hate 
Protestants ? I read in your profession of faith 
that every convert must take the following oath 
on the Gospels: "With a sincere heart, there- 
fore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and ab- 
jure every error, heresy, and sect opposed to 
the said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman 
Church." 



The Church. 



lot 



It is not true. The universal love of our 
fellow-men, no matter what their race, color, or 
religion, is the strict commandment of Christ : 
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself M 
(Matt. xix. 19). And the beloved disciple, St. 
John, teaches: "If any man say, I love God, 
and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he 
that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, 
how can he love God, whom he seeth not" 
(I. John iv. 20). 

The words of the profession of faith are ob- 
jective, and imply that, as followers of Christ in 
the one divine society which has ever kept His 
gospel pure and uncorrupted, we detest, even 
as He and His Apostles did (Matt. vii. 15; 
xii. 25, 30; xvi. 16; xviii. 17; Rom. xvi. 
17; I. Cor. i. 10; Gal. i. 9; Eph. iv. 4; 
Heb. xiii. 7-9, etc.), all heresy which is a 
denial of God's truth, and schism, which is a 
withdrawal from the one fold of the Good Shep- 
herd (John x. 16). They in no way refer to 
the individuals belonging to false religions or 
spurious Christianities, who, through the sins 
of their ancestors and ignorance of the true 
gospel, are separated from the Church of the 
living God. 

My mother — a good soul and a sincere Protest- 
ant—assures me that it will break her heart if 
I become a Catholic. I believe all the teachings 



102 • The Question Box. 



of your Church, but find it hard to pain one so 
dear to me. 

A very practical difficulty, and one that has 
been given me scores of times by timid, doubt- 
ing souls. 

The true follower of Christ dare not hesitate 
to obey His teaching once it is known, for 
to be false to one's conscience is to instantly 
imperil one's eternal salvation. 

Our Lord speaks of this opposition of rela- 
tives, but declares that He and His teaching 
must come first : 

<( For I come to set a man at variance againsl 
his father, and the daughter against her mother. 
. . . He that loveth father or mother mon* 
than Me, is not worthy of Me" (Matt x. 
35, 37)- 

No true parent can find fault with a child 
who is loyal to conscience and to truth; no 
true parent can desire a child to commit griev- 
ous sin by deliberately refusing to do what he 
knows to be the will of God. 

The Catholic Church interprets the fourth 
commandment, " Honor thy father and thy 
mother,' 9 to imply obedience in all that is good 
and lawful. If a parent command or advise 
something contrary to God's law, a child is 
bound to disobey, on the apostolic principle: 
"We ought to obey God rather than men " 
{Acts v. 29). 



Visibility. 103 



VISIBILITY. 

What do Catholics mean by the Church ? 

Did not Jesus declare that His kingdom was 
only to exist in the heart of man ? " The king- 
dom of God is within you " (Luke xvii. 21). 

Should not the bond of fellowship in Christ be 
merely internal ? 

"By the Church on earth, Catholics un- 
derstand the visible community of believers, 
founded by Christ, in which by means of an 
enduring apostleship, established by Him, and 
appointed to conduct all nations, in the course 
of ages, back to God, the works wrought by 
Him during His earthly life, for the redemp- 
tion and sanctification of mankind, are, under 
the guidance of His Spirit, continued to the 
end of the world " (Mohler, " Symbolism," ch. 
v. pp. xxxvi. 253). 

All the figures and parables used by our 
Saviour and the Apostles to designate the 
Church declare it to be a visible organism. 
It is called a kingdom (Matt. iv. 23; xiii. 
24), a field (Matt. xiii. 24) , a grain of mustard- 
seed that becometh a tree '(Matt. xiii. 31, 32), 
a flock (x\cts xx. 28), a city seated on a moun- 
tain (Matt. v. 14), a body (I. Cor. xii. 13), 
the body of Christ (I. Cor. xii. 27; Eph. i. 
22, 23). 

The very fact of the Incarnation — the Word 



104 



The Question Box. 



becoming flesh to speak, teach, work, suffer, 
and die as man — ought to lead any thinking 
man to believe that the perpetuation of the 
Incarnation must needs be through a visible 
medium which, like Christ, would be both 
human and divine. 

Christ was not merely a teacher of doctrine, 
but an organizer of a society. He chooses 
twelve men under the leadership of Simon 
Peter, gives them power to teach all nations 
in His name, and declares those condemned 
who will not hearken. Our I^ord could not 
command us to hear the Church (Matt, xviii. 
17; Mark xvi. 16), unless it were a visible 
society that could be recognized by all. 

Undoubtedly the Church is a spiritual and 
supernatural society, and the externals of its 
government, hierarchy, preaching, and sacra- 
ments have no other purpose than the invisible 
cleansing of men's hearts from sin, and the 
invisible enlightenment of men's minds of 
error; but, as Cardinal Newman declared, 
" the Church is not a secret society.' ' Its doc- 
trines, laws, and worship can be known clearly 
and definitely at all times and in all places. 

The true follower of Christ, therefore, is the 
man living in the faith and love of Christ 
Jesus, which is infallibly guaranteed and given 
him by the visible Church established by the 
Son of God. 



Infallibility. 



105 



The text in question is not to the point. 
The Pharisees, who expected the Messias to 
come with kingly power, asked Jesus, when 
the kingdom of God should come ? He re- 
buked them, and declared the kingdom of God 
had already come, and was being preached by 
Him to the Jews. 



INFALLIBILITY. 

How are we in the twentieth century to find 
out with certainty all that the Saviour taught ? 

How can you arrogantly claim that four 
Church is infallible ? 

The Catholic says, with St. Paul: " Faith 
cometh by hearing'' (Rom. x. 17). The only 
way for all men to find out all Christ's teach- 
ings w T ith certainty is to listen to the living 
voice of a divine, infallible teacher : the Catho- 
lic Church. The Catholic believes that, together 
with the written word of God, there is a divine 
tradition of gospel truth — both of which are 
safeguarded and interpreted by a divine, in- 
fallible authority instituted by Christ. 

If we study well the Scriptures, merely as 
genuine historical documents, we find that the 
Saviour selected certain of His disciples to be 
the teachers of His revelation, and that He in- 
vested them with His own divine power and 



lo6 



The Question Box. 



authority. He sent them to preach His gospel 
to the whole world, He commanded men to 
believe them under penalty of damnation, He 
promised to guarantee all they taught by His 
own abiding presence, and to preserve them 
from error by the abiding of the Holy Ghost, 
the Spirit of Truth. 

"And He chose twelve of them, whom also 
He named Apostles" (L,uke vi. 13). 

"All power is given to Me in heaven and 
in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations. 
. . . Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you ; and be- 
hold I am with you all days, even to the con- 
summation of the world " (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). 

"Go ye into the whole world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieveth not, shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 
15, 16). 

"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send 
you" (John xx. 21). 

' ' He that heareth you, heareth Me ; and he 
that despiseth you, despiseth Me ; and he that 
despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me" 
(Luke x. 16). 

"And if he will not hear the Church, let 
him be to thee as the heathen and publican " 
(Matt, xviii. 17). 

"But you shall receive the power of the 



Infallibility. 



107 



Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall 
be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all 
Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost 
part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). 

" And I will ask the Father, and He shall 
give you another Paraclete, that He may abide 
with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. . . . 
He shall abide with you, and shall be in you " 
(John xiv. 16, 17). 

" But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom 
the Father will send in My name, He will 9 
teach you all things, and bring all things to 
your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to 
you 99 (John xiv. 26). 

It is evident from these words of the Saviour 
that the gospel is not to be limited to a book, 
but learned from living teachers whose doctrine 
and government are identical with His, au- 
thoritative, infallible, and divine. 

If we turn to the writings of the Apostles, 
we see that they expressly claim the authority 
of divine infallible teachers of God's revela- 
tion, and demand absolute obedience under 
penalty of damnation (Mark xvi. 16). All 
other teachers are to be avoided, as teaching 
false doctrine. 

14 How then shall the}' call on Him, in whom 
they have not believed ? Or how shall they 
believe Him, of whom they have net heard? 
And how shall they hear without a preacher? 



io8 



The Questioi Box. 



And liow shall they preach unless they are 
sent? . • • Faith then cometh by hear- 
ing; and hearing by the word of Christ* 9 
(Rom. x. 14, 17). 

"By whom [Jesus Christ] we have received 
grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith, 
in all nations, for His name" (Rom. i. 5). 

"To us God hath revealed by His Spirit. 
• . . Now we have received not the spirit 
of this world but the Spirit that is of God; 
that we may know the things that are given 
us from God, which things also we speak " (I. 
Cor. ii. 10, 12, 13). 

"We have the mind of Christ" (I. Cor. 
ii. 16). 

" We are God's coadjutors" (I. Cor. iii. 9). 

" I*et a man so account of us as of the min- 
isters of Christ, and the dispensers of the mys- 
teries of God" (I. Cor. iv. 1). 

"[God] hath given to us the ministry of 
reconciliation. . . . For Christ, therefore, 
we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting 
by us" (II. Cor. v. 18-20). 

" Sound doctrine, which is according to the 
gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which 
hath been committed to my trust " (I. Tim. 
i. 10, 11). 

"There are some that trouble you, and 
would pervert the gospel of Christ. But 
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 



Infallibility, 



109 



a gospel to you besides that which we have 
preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 . 
The gospel which was preached by me is not 
according to man. For neither did I receive 
it of man, nor did I learn it, but by the revela 
tion of Jesus Christ' 1 (Gal. i. 7-1 1). 

,( We are of God. He that knoweth God, 
heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth 
us note By this we know the spirit of truth, 
and the spirit of error" (L John iv. 6). 

" When you had received of us the word 
of the hearing of God, you received it not as 
the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word 
of God" (I. Thess. ii. 13). 

Nothing is plainer, therefore, in the Scrip- 
tures than the appointment by Jesus Christ of 
a divine, infallible teaching body which was 
to preach His entire gospel to the world, 
There is never a w T ord commanding His dec- 
trine to be written ; His gospel is to be 
preached by the Apostles, and hearkened to 
by the faithful, as if He Himself were speak- 
ing. 

Was this divine economy to end with the 
death of the Apostles? No 2 Jesus Christ 
plainly tells us that His gospel should be 
taught until the end by a perpetual series ot 
successors of the Apostolic teaching body* 

He promised to be with them all days (Matt, 
xxviii. 20), and to send the Holy Spirit to 



Iio The Question Box. 



abide with them for ever to teach them all 
things (John xiv. 16, 26); He gives them a 
mission to the whole world (Matt, xxviii. 19); 
to every creature (Mark xvi. 15). They per- 
sonally were not to remain upon earth until 
the end, and so Christ's words evidently refer 
to a perpetual Apostolic succession to witness 
His gospel for ever. 

We read, accordingly, in St. Paul's epistles 
how the Apostles ordained teachers, and com- 
manded them in turn to ordain others who 
would faithfully guard the deposit of faith, 
and hand down to succeeding generations until 
the end every doctrine that had been taught 
by Jesus Christ. 

" For this cause I left thee in Crete, that 
thou shouldst set in order the things that are 
wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every 
city, as I also appointed thee" (Tit. i. 5). 

" Stir up the grace of God which is in thee 
by the imposition of my hands " (II. Tim. i. 6) . 

" O Timothy, keep that which is committed 
to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties 
of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely 
so called" (I. Tim, vi. 20). 

" Hold the form of sound words, which thou 
hast heard of me in faith, and in the love 
which is Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing 
committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, 
who dwelleth in us" (II. Tim. i. 13, 14). 



Infallibility. / 1 1 

" The things which thou hast heard of me 
by many witnesses, the same commend to faith- 
ful men, who shall be fit to teach others also " 
(II. Tim. ii. 2). 

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold 
the traditions which you have learned, whether 
by word or by our epistle " (II. Thess. ii. 14). 

"And He gave some apostles, and some 
prophets, and other some evangelists, and other 
some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of 
the saints, for the work of the ministry, for 
the edifying of the body of Christ (i.e., the 
Church) until we all meet in the unity of 
faith " (Eph. iv. 11). 

Thus we see clearly that the only certain 
way for all men to learn the gospel of Christ 
is from the living voice of an infallible Church, 
" the pillar and ground of the truth " (I. Tim. 
Hi. 15).' Such is the teaching of Scripture; 
such the constant voice of tradition from the 
beginning. 

Thus, Origen wrote in the third century 1 
M Many think they believe what Christ taught, 
and some of these differ from others. . . G 
All should profess that doctrine which came 
down from the Apostles, and now continues 
in the Church ; that alone is truth which in 
nothing differs from what is thus delivered 99 
(Prsef. Lib. i. Periarchon). And St. Augus- 
tine in the fifth cexttury : "Do thou run to 



1 1 2 The Question Box. 

the tabernacle of God. Hold fast to the Catho* 
lie Church ; do not depart from the rule of 
truth, and thou shalt be protected in the 
tabernacle from the contradiction of tongues'- 
(Enar. iii. in Ps. 30). 

Reason and revelation both demand that the 
teacher of Christ's doctrine and morality should 
speak with no uncertain voice. A church 
which disclaims infallibility must sooner or 
later be powerless to teach men the revelation 
of God. " Any supernatural religion," says 
the Protestant writer, Mallock, "that renounces 
its claim to this [absolute infallibility], it is 
clear can profess to be a semi- revelation only. 
It is a hybrid thing, partly natural and partly 
supernatural, and it thus practically has all the 
qualities of a religion that is wholly natural, 
In so far as it professes to be revealed, it of 
course professes to be infallible ; but iF the re- 
vealed part be in the first place hard to distin- 
guish, and in the second place hard to under- 
stand ; if it may mean many things, and many 
of those things contradictory, it might just as 
well have been never made at all. To make it 
in any sense an infallible revelation, or in other 
words a revelation at all, to us, we need a power* 
to interpret the testament that shall have equal 
authority with that testament itself " ("Is Life 
Worth Living ? " ch. xi. p. 267 seq., Putnam,. 



Infallibility. 



113 



Indeed, once you grant that God has made a 
revelation to the world through Jesus Christ 
His Son, you must also grant that if all men 
are " to come to the knowledge of the truth " 
(I. Tim. ii. 4), and to believe under the penalty 
of damnation (Mark xvi. 16), God must neces- 
sarily guarantee with absolute infallible cer- 
tainty the doctrines of salvation. He cannot 
allow His followers to be led astray by false 
prophets (Mark xiii. 21) and lying teachers 
(II. Pet. ii. 1), who preach a new gospel op- 
posed to His (Gal. i. 8). 

Is not Protestantism to-day, with its vague- 
ness, contradictions, uncertainty, lack of unity 
in government and doctrine, constant varia- 
tions, its inability to command and teach, its 
denial of the fundamental dogmas of Chris- 
tianity, its downward tendency toward indiffer- 
entism and unbelief, a standing argument of the 
necessity of an infallible teacher ? Disclaiming 
infallibility, it cannot demand the assent of any 
rational man. 

Catholicism, with its perfect Catholic unity 
of government and doctrine, its definiteness, 
certainty, permanence amid changes of time 
and place and people, its divine power of teach- 
ing and commanding under penalty of hell, its 
absolute uncompromising condemnation of in- 
differentisrn and infidelity in every form, stands 
unique and alone as the divine, infallible, one, 



114 



The Question Box. 



holy, Catholic, and Apostolic society established 
by the Christ. (Macl,aughlin, "The Divine 
Plan of the Church"; Bagshawe, "The 
Church"; Cox, "The Pillar and Ground of 
the Truth"; Lyons, "Christianity and Infal- 
libility ,s ; Mohler, "Symbolism," ch. v.; 
Schanz, "A Christian Apology," vol. iii.; 
Newman, "Essay on Development," p. 75 et 
seq.; Duke, "King, Prophet, and Priest.") 

Is not your doctrine of Infallibility opposed 
to liberty of thought ? 

Is not a Catholic hampered in his search after 
truth by his blind, degrading obedience to the 
claims of an infallible Church? 

The doctrine of infallibility is opposed to the 
false liberty of thinking error, but not to the 
true liberty of thinking the truth. This objec- 
tion is based on the false notion that unre- 
stricted liberty of thought is a good thing, and 
that every man has a right to think just as he 
pleases. The Catholic Church maintains, how- 
ever, that no one has a right to believe what is 
false, any more than he has a right to do what 
is evil. Christ plainly tells us that error and 
sin imply not the liberty but the slavery of the 
intellect and will. " You shall know the truth, 
and the truth shall make you free " (John viii. 
32) ; " Whosoever committeth sin, is the ser- 
vant of sin" (ibid. 34). 



Infallibility. 



Universal liberty of thought is impossible, 
for every principle and fact of reason or revela- 
tion that we acquire must necessarily restrict 
our liberty of thinking the opposite. Once we 
clearly grasp any truth, we are bound by the 
law of our reason to accept it. No intelligent 
man to-day would consider himself free to deny 
the fact of wireless telegraphy, the existence of 
bacteria, or X rays, the phenomena of hypnot- 
ism, or the earth's movement around the sun. 
No man of sense, even if he had never travelled 
beyond his own little village, w r ould question 
the testimony of others regarding the existence 
of London, Pckin, or Calcutta. Speculation is 
useless, and opinions are absurd, when we are 
face to face with undoubted facts. A man full 
of prejudice, ignorance, and error may think 
himself free to believe many calumnies against 
the Catholic Church. He may believe that 
Catholics adore the saints and worship their 
images, sell indulgences, pay money for confes- 
sion, and the like. He may believe that they 
teach that the end justifies the means, that it is 
lawful to lie to heretics, that the Pope can do 
no wrong. But surely he is not to be congratu- 
lated for this freedom of believing what is not 
so. Such liberty of thought is not a blessing, 
but a curse, to be done away with as soon as 
possible by a knowledge of the truth. 

We can readily see how non- Catholics, whose 



Ii6 



The Question Box, 



religion disclaims infallibility and rests on the 
shifting sands of private judgment, should 
quarrel with any certain teaching in religion. 
They cannot agree among themselves about 
the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
and their belief resting on mere opinion, logi- 
cally is uncertain, hesitating, and questioning. 
The result with those who carry matters to 
their logical conclusion is scepticism, indiffer- 
ence, and unbelief. 

The Catholic, however, believing in a Church 
authority which, like Christ, is divine and in- 
fallible, speaking in His name and with His 
authority, gladly welcomes the revelation of 
God she voices, with a certain, unhesitating 
assent. The Church to him is Christ speak- 
ing : " He that heareth you, heareth Me" 
(Iyuke x. 16), and therefore he knows she can- 
not deceive nor be deceived. A Catholic, there- 
fore, would no more question the doctrine 
of auricular confession, transubstantiation, the 
Trinity, eternal punishment, than a mathema- 
tician would the fact that two sides of a tri- 
angle are greater than the third. 

The submission of the Catholic to the Church 
is not " a blind, degrading obedience' ' to a 
mere human authority, but the assent of faith 
to a divine authority, which he can prove pro- 
claims to the world all the teachings of the 
Saviour. He knows by reason that God hath 



Infallibility. 1:7 

spoken ; lie believes by faith all that God has 
said, because He is the Infinite Truth. " If we 
receive the testimony of men, the testimony of 
God is greater" (I. John v. 9). 

The Catholic is not hampered in his search 
for truth, any more than the scientist is ham- 
pered by any ascertained principle or fact of 
science. Indeed, the certainty of revealed truth 
gives him a greater confidence and freedom in 
the pursuit of new truths. Many things are 
ltTt open to speculation, outside the domain 
defined dogma. With an infallible guide, he 
calmly views the progress of science, carefully 
distinguishing opinion from principle, hypothe- 
sis from fact, and does not change his doctrines 
to meet the shifting views of unproven scien- 
tific theories. 

Infallibility, therefore, is the corrective -of 
ignorance and error, and the foe to uncertainty 
about the dogmas revealed by God. As Car- 
dinal Newman wrote: " It is a supply for a 
need, and it does not go beyond the need. Its 
object is, and its effect also, not to enfeeble the 
freedom or vigor of human thought, but to re- 
sist and control its extravagance ' ' (" Apolo- 
gia, " p. 253, Longmans, Green & Co., 1897). 

And the Protestant writer Mallock : <( It [the 
doctrine of infallibility] is not a fetter only ; 
it is a support "also ; and those who cling to it 
can venture fearlessly, as explorers, into cur- * 



1 1 8 The Question Box. 

rents of speculation that would sweep away 
altogether men who did but trust to their own 
powers of swimming " ("Is Life Worth Liv- 
ing ? " ch. xii. p. 310). 

Is not your Church a spiritual despotism in 
which men must surrender their private judg- 
ment in religion to men like themselves? 

If the Church were a mere human authority 
that undertook to give its own views of Christ's 
teachings, like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Fox, 
Socinus, Mrs. Eddy, Dowie, a rational thinker 
might indeed call it a spiritual despotism when 
it attempted in the slightest degree to command 
in matters of faith or morals. 

But the Catholic Church is a divine teacher, 
commissioned by the Almighty Son of God to 
teach all nations till the end of time in His 
name and with His authority, and guaranteed 
as "the pillar and ground of the truth' ' by 
His abiding presence and the Holy Spirit's 
(Matt, xxviii. 18-20.; Mark xvi. 15, 16; John 
xiv. 16; xvi. 13; Luke x. 16; L Tim. iii. 15, 
etc.) There can, therefore, be no question of 
any intellectual or moral slavery for a man to 
submit to her authority, which is God's. " He 
that heareth you heareth me" (Luke x. 16). 

" It is not the Church that established spir- 
itual despotism ; it is she who saves us from it. 
Spiritual despotism is that which subjects us, 



Infallibility. 1 19 



in spiritual matters, to a human authority, 
v/hether our own or that of others, — for our 
own is as human as another's, — and the only 
redemption from it is having in spiritual mat- 
ters a divine authority. Protestants themselves 
acknowledge this when they call out for the 
pure word of God. The Church teaches by 
divine authority ; in submitting to her we sub- 
mit to God, and are freed from all human au- 
thority. 'She teaches infallibly; therefore, in 
believing what she teaches, we believe the 
truth, which frees us from falsehood and error, 
to which all men without an infallible guide 
are subject, and submission to which is the 
elemental principle of all spiritual despotism. 
Her authority admitted excludes all other au- 
thority, and therefore frees us from heresiarchs 
and sects, the very embodiment of spiritual 
despotism in its most odious form" (O. A. 
Brownson's Works, vol. x. p. 128). 

Indeed, what is the fundamental reason to- 
day of the downward trend of Protestantism 
toward infidelity ? Is it not the fact that intel- 
ligent men are beginning more and more to 
realize the slavery of being subject to a sect's 
human and fallible version of Christianity? 
How many Protestants to-day, for example, 
hold to the original doctrine of Luther or of 
Calvin ! Very many even deny the essential 
dogmas Christ taught, viz.: the Trinity, the 



120 



The Question Box. 



Divinity of Christ, eternal punishment, and the 
like. A pretty conclusive argument this that 
either there is in the world to-day a teacher 
divine, infallible, and authoritative even as 
Christ, namely, the Catholic Church, or no man 
living can be certain that he possesses the com- 
plete gospel the Saviour taught. 

Does not your Church substitute her authority 
for reason ? 

By no means. She undoubtedly demands 
the acceptance of her divine authority, for 
faith is essentially the acceptance of truth on 
the authority of God. She does not, however, 
ask men to accept her claims blindly, but de- 
sires them first of all to convince themselves by 
their reason of the fact of God's revelation and 
its content, and then before obeying her to be 
morally certain* that she is, as she claims, the 
divine authoritative, infallible teacher of God 
upon earth. What can be more reasonable ? 

Far from denying the rights of reason, she 
condemned in Reformation times those who 
asserted that the fall rendered man unable to 
attain to any truth without revelation (Trent, 
Sess. VI., can. 4-6 ), and in our own day she 
condemns the unbeliever who denies the power 
of reason to demonstrate the existence of 
God. 

c Many a convert, who has found peace after 



Infallibility. 



121 



many years of seeking, can voice the following 
words of Father Hecker : " It was one of the 
happiest moments of our life, when we discov- 
ered for the first time that it was not required 
of us to abandon our reason or drown it in a 
false excitement to be a religious man. That to 
become a Catholic, so far from being contrary 
to reason, was a supreme act of reason " 
Questions of the Soul, p. 286; cf. " Aspira- 
tions of Nature," xxiii. xxiv.) 

Did not Martin Luther, in his bold protest 
against an usurped authority, stand for the rights 
of the individual reason ? 

One might think so from the vague and 
erroneous assertions of certain non-Catholic 
writers and speakers, but no student of his 
works would dare to claim him as a champion 
of reason. On the contrary, no one could 
possibly underrate it more. 

He declared that ' ' its activity is always evil 
and godless," that it is useless as a guide to 
the truth of God: " The Christian revelation 
rejects clearly all flesh and blood — that is, what 
is human, and all human reason, since these 
certainly are not able to lead us to Christ." 
In fact, he held that " reason goes straight 
against belief. We ought, therefore, to let rea- 
son slide. Reason must be killed and buried in 
faith. You say reason is a light to faith, that 



122 



The Question Box. 



it should enlighten faith where it shall go. 
Yes, in my judgment reason sheds. light, like a 
piece of dirt in a lantern " (Quoted by Hecker, 
"Aspirations of Nature," xvii. pp. 116, 117, 
119. Cf. Mohler's " Symbolism "). 

How different the Catholic teaching, which 
holds that original sin did not destroy any of 
man's natural faculties, but left his reason and 
his free will essentially unimpaired. With the 
Catholic, reason "is the 'most distinguished 
gift of Heaven " (Pius IX., Letter to the Aus- 
trian Bishops, 1856). It is the guide to faith 
whereby a man can prove beforehand certain 
fundamental dogmas, such as the existence of 
God, the spirituality of the soul, and free will, 
and the fact that God has made a revelation to 
men. Otherwise faith would be an irrational 
act and not a " reasonable service" (Rom. xii. 
1; see "Aspirations of Nature," ch. xxiii. 
xxiv.) 

How can you put the laws of your Church on 
the same level as the Commandments of Sinai, 
and say that any one who disobeys them merits 
damnation ? 

Because the Catholic Church is not a mere 
human institution founded by men, who im- 
posed laws and creeds of their own devising, 
but a divine, infallible society founded by 
Jesus Christ to teach and command in His 



Infallibility, 



123 



name and with His authority until the end of 
time. To believe her teaching is to believe 
Christ ; to obey her commands is to obey 
Christ ; to despise her is to despise Christ. 

11 As the Father hath sent Me, I also send 
you " (John xx. 21). 

" All power is given to Me in heaven and in 
earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations " 
(Matt, xxviii. 19). 

44 And if he will not hear the Church, let 
him be to thee as the heathen and publican M 
( v Matt. xviii. 17). 

"He that despiseth you, despiseth Me" 
(Luke x. 16). 

"Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth 
shall be bound also in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 

18). 

Any one, therefore, who knows that the 
Catholic Church is God's only Church, and 
refuses to obey her, is guilty of grievous sin 
before God. To eat meat on Friday, to stay 
away from Mass on Sunday, or to fail to re- 
ceive the sacraments at Easter time — if done 
deliberately and in malice — are direct insults 
to Jesus Christ whose representative the Church 
is, and therefore deprive the sinner of God's 
friendship. 

I believe that a Christian can personally fol- 
low Christ without spiritual rulers, popes or 



The Quest ioji Box. 



bishops, to dictate by creeds, rites, and laws 
what men must think and do to be saved. 

You do not, then, believe in the Christianity 
of Jesus Christ, as witnessed to in the New 
Testament. 

The Saviour selected twelve Apostles (Matt, 
x. i), sent them to preach the gospel to the 
whole world (Matt, xxviii. 19), to administer 
the seven sacraments (Matt, xxviii. 19; John 

xx. 23; I. Cor. xi. 23-29; Acts viii. 14-17; 
James v. 14, 15 ; I. Tim. iv. 14 ; Matt. xix. 6), 
to make laws and to govern (Matt, xviii. 18; 
Acts xx. 28), with and under the* chief Apostle, 
St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 18; L,uke xxii. 32; John 

xxi. 15-17). St. Paul speaks clearly of men 
who have divine power to rule, to teach, and 
to command the Christian people. "And he 
gave some apostles, and some prophets, and 
other some evangelists, and other some pas- 
tors and doctors, for the perfecting of the 
saints, for the work of the ministry, for 
the edifying of the Body of Christ [the 
Church], until we all meet into the unity of 
faith' - (Eph. iv. n-13; cf. I. Cor. xii. 28, 29). 

Creeds are verbal, concrete expressions of 
the truths revealed by God, and guaranteed to 
the world by the divine, infallible witness of 
the Church guided by the Holy Spirit (John 
xiv. 26). Rites or sacraments are not merely 
human or ecclesiastical ceremonies, but outward 



The Church. 



125 



signs of the grace of God instituted by Christ, 
to convey to us the fruits of His death upon 
the cross. Laws are necessary to a visible 
society like the Church, that it might not 
degenerate into anarchy of doctrine and gov- 
ernment. 

If, as you pretend, the claims of your Church 
are so strong, why is it that so many intelligent 
non-Catholics fail to see their force ? 

There are many leasons to account for this. 
Prejudice is a great obstacle to faith. Many 
from childhood have been taught by parents, 
teachers, ministers, and books that the Catho- 
lic Church is the enemy of reason, science, and 
progress, the falsifier of Scripture and of his- 
tory, the home of corruption, superstition, and 
intolerance. Indeed, many a convert has told 
me that he would as soon have thought of 
considering the claims of Mohammedanism as 
those of Catholicity, so much did he despise it. 

The easy, modern dogma of Indifferentism 
likewise keeps many from the truth. Many 
men are wearied of the uncertainty and contra- 
dictions of Protestant Christianity, and yet, un- 
true to reason and conscience, they shrink from 
earnest and sincere search after the revelation 
of God, vainly striving to satisfy the claims of 
conscience by the plea that it makes no differ- 
ence what a man believes, provided he lead a 



126 



The Question Box, 



pretty good life, and is kind to his family and 

his friends. \ 

i 

Above all, the Sins of pride, worldliness, 
sensuality, and avarice bandage men's eyes to 
the light of God's truth. " The sensual man," 
says St. Paul, * ' perceiveth not those things 
that are of the spirit of God ; for it is foolish- 
ness to him, and he cannot understand' ' (I. 
Cor. ii. 14). A man's unbelief, or sometimes 
his denomination, sits lightly upon him, en- 
forcing few obligations beyond those of ex- 
ternal propriety and good form, not interfering 
in the slightest with his private religious opin- 
ions, however erroneous, or with his cherished 
habits of sin. It is hard, indeed, for such to 
consider the claims of a Church that teaches 
with the authority of God a certain body of 
definite dogmas ; that prescribes in His name 
certain hard religious duties, as confession, ob- 
ligatory church attendance, fasting and absti- 
nence ; that denounces strongly divorce and all 
immorality in the marriage state. 

Other unfaithful ones dread the Consequences 
of Conversion , viz.: the bitter opposition of 
relatives, the loss of friends, the injury to one's 
business prospects, the social ostracism, and the 
hostile voice of public opinion in a town or 
city where Catholics are looked down upon as 
poor and ignorant. 

We remind our questioner, however, of the 



The Church. 



127 



many thousands of the best and most intelligent 
men and women in Protestantism and unbelief 
who are coming back every year to the Church 
their forefathers left some four hundred years 
ago. Nothing but the absolute satisfaction 
given by the Church to every demand of mind 
and will and heart could make these cour- 
ageous souls conquer the many difficulties that 
lie in a convert's path. With a mind alert to 
know God's truth, with a will to embrace it 
wherever found, with a heart repenting of past 
sin and full of the childlike spirit the Master 
spoke of as essential, the return is easy for 
every earnest soul. 

Is not the whole tendency of the Catholic 
Church to hinder the direct relationship of man 
with God? 

On the contrary, its sole aim is to bring the 
individual souls of men into immediate union 
with God, through Jesus Christ. 

While Protestantism leaves men subject to 
every vagary of private judgment with regard 
to Christ's teachings, so that millions in their 
doubting and uncertainty are led to unbelief, 
the Catholic Church, as a divine, infallible, 
authoritative teacher, teaching in the name of 
the Son of God, guarantees to the world an ab- 
solute certainty of all the truths of God. 
^ Protestantism, again, with its partial or total 



128 The Question Box. 

denial of Christianity as a sacramental religion, 
deprives men of the great helps to that union 
with God that Christ gave the world, and 
which all Christians enjoyed until the Reforma- 
tion. How many non Catholics to-day regard 
'Baptism as a mere ceremony ! The Catholic 
Church declares it the divinely appointed way 
of entrance into the kingdom of God, and of 
oneness with Christ through cleansing from 
sin. How many non- Catholics who believe in 
baptismal regeneration, and yet know of no 
sacrament for the forgiveness of sins committed 
after baptism, are anxious, and wonder 
whether or not their souls are free from stain ! 
The Catholic Church in the sacrament of pen- 
ance guarantees the sinner real certainty of par- 
don ; if he but repent and promise amendment, 
he is again united with God in the friendship of 
God's grace. 

Protestantism again, with its cold and bar- 
ren eating of bread and drinking of wine in 
memory of Christ, must yield to that wonderful, 
sublime doctrine of the Catholic Church, which 
declares that there is no closer union possible 
of the soul and its God than that of Holy Com- 
munion, for as Christ Jesus Himself promised : 
"He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My 
blood, abideth in Me and I in him" (John 
vi. 57)- 

The Blessed Virgin and the other saints of 



The Church. 



129 



God, loved by every Catholic because mani- 
festly the friends of Christ, do not prevent our 
direct access to Him, but rather help it, for 
they know how much we need Him. With the 
Mother of God they say to us: "Whatsoever 
He shall say to you, do ye" (John ii. 5), or 
with St. Paul: "Be ye followers of me, as I 
also am of Christ" (I. Cor. xi. 1). 

The Catholic priesthood does not at will 
frame doctrines which the people must accept, 
nor does it interpret capriciously the moral 
code and force the conscience of the individual 
through the confessional; but it preaches the 
doctrines of the deposit of the faith, and inter- 
prets the law of Christ according to the Chris- 
tian principles handed down from the beginning. 
The priest no more interferes with a man's re- 
lationship with God than our ambassador to 
England hinders that country's relations with 
ours. 

Does not the Catholic Church insist rather on 
an outward conformity with her teachings than 
on fidelity to conscience? 

Did not the Reformation do away for ever with 
a morality based on an obedience to a priesthood, 
and substitute one founded on the sacred char- 
acter of the individual conscience ? 

On the contrary, the Catholic Church has 
always maintained the inviolability of the indi- 



130 The Question Box. 

vidual conscience. The only reason of her ex- 
istence is to teach men their individual respon- 
sibility to the truths taught by Christ, that, 
following out a rightly instructed conscience, 
Ihey might enjoy God's presence for ever. She 
teaches that conscience is ever the interpreter 
of the moral law to the individual ; it must 
needs be obeyed, for its power to command rises 
from its being the voice of God. Pope Inno- 
cent III. taught plainly: "Whatever is done 
contrary to conscience leads to hell" (Decret. 
Lib. II. tit. 13, c. 13). And St. Thomas: 
"Therefore it must be said, that every [sin- 
cere] conscience, whether it be right or incul- 
pably erroneous, whether it regards things in 
themselves evil or indifferent, is obligatory, so 
that he who acts against conscience sins' ? 
(Quodlibet, q. iii. a. 27). ' 

The Church does not put herself in the place 
of conscience ; neither does the priesthood. 
The infallible teaching authority of the Church, 
declaring with certainty the morality of Christ's 
gospel, gives firmness and strength to the moral 
judgment of the individual, who without it 
would be left to build on the shifting sands of 
private judgment. The Catholic priest does 
not shoulder the individual conscience, and 
weaken character by enforcing a stupid obedi- 
ence ; but rather strives in every way to edu- 
cate the conscience of the people according to 



Indef edibility. 



the teaching of Christ, so that they may better 
know the truth and do the right. 

Catholics, indeed, obey the laws of their 
Church, because they know she has a divine 
right to command. Does obedience to the laws 
of the state militate against the individual con- 
science ? Why, then, should obedience to 
Christian law? 

The Reformation produced indeed an exag- 
gerated individualism, which by declaring every 
man equally competent to find out the doctrines 
of the Saviour from his own private reading of 
the Scriptures, has led millions to the utter 
denial of Christ and His doctrines of faith and 
morality. 



INDEFECTIBIUTY. 

Is it not a notorious fact that the Church of 
Rome flagrantly erred? How, then, can you 
call it the Church of Christ? 

Although it is a commonplace of Protestant 
controversy to state that the Church fell into 
error any time from the fourth to the sixteenth 
century, and that it was resurrected in all its 
pristine purity by the Reformation, such state- 
ment has never been proved. Indeed, it would 
give the lie direct to the promises of Christ : 
' * Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall 



132 



The Question Box. 



not prevail against it n (Matt. xvi. 18). 11 Be- 
hold I am with you all days, even to the con- 
summation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). 
" I will ask the Father, and He shall give you 
another Paraclete, that he may abide with you 
for ever" (John xiv. 16). 

True, indeed, in certain times and places her 
unfaithful children have grown lax in disci- 
pline, weak in religious fervor, and through 
heresy and immorality defections have oc- 
curred ; still, Christ's divine words are the guar- 
antee that in her constitution and her doctrines 
she can never cease to exist as the kingdom of 
God on earth. 

Suppose, for example, that the Church could 
fail. Instantly her power to teach men would 
cease, for one could readily refuse obedience on 
the plea that the Church had already failed, 
or that her Founder was a mere man without 
divine authority to teach. Christ, therefore, 
either established a Church that could not err, 
or He never established any teaching authority 
at all. 

Will you not admit that a reformation was 
needed in the sixteenth century ? 

We will readily grant that a reformation in the 
lives of many unworthy churchmen of the day 
was imperatively needed, and that unless many 
Catholics of the period had been living most 
corrupt lives, they would never have aban- 



Indef edibility. 



133 



doned the Church of Jesus Christ. The Catho- 
lic's loss of faith is ever traceable to the break- 
ing of the Ten Commandments. The Church 
felt this keenly herself, and reformed many 
abuses at the Council of Trent, 1 545-1563. 

But once grant that the Church is a divine 
institution founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God, to teach and save men for all time ; once 
grant that He promised to build it secure for 
ever against all attacks of hell, and to guaran- 
tee its perpetuity by His own abiding presence 
and that of the Holy Spirit (Matt, xxviii. 19, 
20 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; John xiv. 16) , and the right 
of secession can in 110 way be justified. 

As long as our country remains a country it 
will ever have the power to reform by law the 
abuses inevitable to any government among 
men. If, for example, a city became full of 
corrupt officials, we would not be justified in 
trying to destroy it, but would strive at the 
next election to put the proper men in power. 
So the Church, in like manner, has within her- 
self the power to remedy any abuses that may 
arise. You do not cure a man of cancer by 
chopping off his head. 

A so-called reformation which denied the 
constitution of the Church, the doctrines of 
Christ, and the manner of Christian worship — 
Holy Mass, handed down from the beginning — 
was not of God. 



134 



The Question Box. 



St. Paul put it plainly : " Though we, or an 
angel from heaven, preach a gospel beside that 
which we have preached to you, let him be 
anathema" (Gal. i. 8). 

The very lives of the Reformers ; the im- 
moral, destructive, unchristian doctrines they 
taught — v. g., private interpretation of the 
Scriptures, justification by faith alone, total de- 
pravity, the slave will, God the author of evil, 
the denial of the sacramental system — are proof 
positive that the Reformation was inevitably a 
tendency toward utter unbelief. 

Whence again, Catholics ask, the right of 
Luther, Calvin, etc., to teach? What were 
their credentials ? 4 4 How shall they preach, 
unless they be sent?" (Rom. x. 15). 

No wonder, then, that the Reformers them- 
selves admitted that their Reformation did not 
reform, but on the contrary led to intellectual, 
social, moral, and religious deterioration. This 
is amply shown in a work drawn exclusively 
from Protestant sources, "The Reformation, 
its Interior Development and its Effects," by 
Dollinger, Ratisbon, 1846-8. (Cf. _ article in 
Dubliii Review, September, 1848.) 

Did not Savonarola, in the fifteenth century, 
attempt to do what Luther did in the sixteenth ? 
Was not Savonarola the precursor of Luther ? 

1 " Savonarola' $ life, teaching, and creed were 



Unity. 



135 



the very antithesis of the life, teaching, and 
creed of the Reformers of the sixteenth age. 
They left the cloister for the world; he left 
the world for the cloister, and was ever true to 
his vows. They began by self- deformation, on 
their own admission ; he by self -reformation, 
on the evidence of friend and foe. They 
dragged down public morality, on their own 
showing ; he raised it to the highest perfec- 
tion. They aimed at reforming creed and doc- 
trine ; he reformed morals and men, upholding 
always doctrine and creed. They denied what 
he taught : the necessity of good works, the 
need of the sacraments as channels of grace, 
transubstantiation, rites and ceremonies, loyalty 
to Peter's See, and devotion to the Mother of 
God. How, then, can he be their 'leader,' 
their ' harbinger, ' who condemns and anathe- 
matizes them all? " (J. Procter, " Savonarola 
and the Reformation," Catholic Truth Society 
publications). 



UNITY. 

Is there not a vast difference between the faith 
of a learned and an ignorant Catholic? 

Both believe the same, inasmuch as both be- 
lieve on the authority of God revealing, as 
witnessed Xq infallibly -by a divine, -author^ 



136 



The Question Box. 



tative teacher, speaking in the name of Jestis 
Christ— the Catholic Church. 

The trained theologian may know more facts, 
have a better grasp of principles, and be better 
able to defend Catholic doctrine than the aver- 
age Catholic ; still, the self-same dogmas must 
be believed by both under penalty of dam- 
nation. 

You claim to have always taught the same 
doctrine ? Why, I remember myself two new 
teachings of your Church, the Immaculate Con- 
ception and the Infallibility of the Pope. 

Can the Catholic Church impose as many new 
creeds as she pleases ? Are not all the doctrines 
of Christianity contained in the Apostles' Creed ? 

The Catholic Church maintains that after 
the death of St. John there has been no objec- 
tive increase in the deposit of faith, although 
there is a progress and a development in our 
understanding of it. She declares that no new 
revelation shall ever supersede the revelation 
of Jesus Christ, and that no additional teach- 
ing can ever be taught. 

Jesus Christ plainly taught that all truths 
were manifested to the Apostles by Himself 
and the Holy Spirit (John xvi. 12, 13; xiv. 
26), and His commission to them is to preach 
" all that He had commanded " (Matt, xxviii.- 
20). St. Paul declares the impossibility of 



Unity, 



any new teaching being of Christ : 1 1 Though 
we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel 
to you besides that which we have preached 
to you, let hirn be anathema M (Gal. i. 8) . He 
warns Timothy to guard the deposit of faith 
(I. Tim. vi. 20), and in his Epistle to the 
Hebrews he clearly teaches the perpetual, un- 
changing character of the new dispensation 
(Heb. viii. 7, 13; xii. 27, 28; vii. 11, et seq.) 
So in the Catholic Church, novelty or newness 
of doctrine has ever been regarded as the sign 
of error. 

Thus the Vatican Council: " For the Holy 
Spirit was not promised to the successors of 
Peter, that by His revelation they might make 
known ?iew doctrine, but that by His assistance 
they might inviolably keep and faithfully ex- 
pound the revelation or deposit of faith de- 
livered through the Apostles'' (Sess. IV. 
ch. iv.) 

What, then, is meant by the definition of 
new dogmas — as, for example, the Immacu- 
late Conception (1854), and the Infallibility of 
the Pope (1870) ? Definition is not the making 
of new beliefs, but the infallible declaration 
that such belief is a part of the original de- 
posit of the faith handed down from the Apos- 
tles. Before such declaration the dogma ex- 
isted, although it was not explicitly believed 
by all Christians. After the definition, it must 



138 



The Question Box. 



be believed by all Christians because of tlie ; 
infallible witness to its truth by the living 
voice of God's Church. 

If a Protestant call the doctrine of infalli- 
bility an addition to the faith because only 
defined in late years, on the same principle 
he ought logically to call the doctrines of the 
divinity of Christ (defined in a.d. 325) and 
the divinity of the Holy Ghost (defined in a.d. 
381) new doctrines. 

There is, however, a development of dogma 
in the Catholic Church, although no teaching 
of new dogmas. Vincent of Lerins (a.d. 431) 
wrote: "Is there, then, no progress of re- 
ligion in the Church of Christ? Surely there 
is; and very great progress. . . . But it 
is truly a progress in the faith, and not a 
change. It is of the nature of progress that 
the particular thing should itself be ampli- 
fied, but of change that something should be 
turned from one thing into another " (Common, 
xxiii.) Development, therefore, means the 
increase of knowledge on the part of Chris- 
tians regarding the doctrines of Christ. There 
is hardly a dogma of the Christian revelation 
that has not been brought out into clearer 
light and minuter detail under the strain of 
controversy or by the attacks of heresy. The 
early heresies concerning the Trinity and the 
Incarnation brought out more clearly the fact 



Unity. 



139 



that God was one nature in three divine 'Per 
sons ; that the Son was consubstantial to the 
Father; that the Holy Ghost proceeded from 
the Father and the Son ; that in Jesus Christ 
the divine and the human natures were united 
in one divine personality ; that the Blessed 
Virgin was the Mother of God, etc. The 
new errors of the Reformation gave occasion to 
the explicit teachings of the Church concerning 
Justification, the Sacraments, Indulgences, the 
veneration of the Saints, the existence of Pur- 
gatory, etc. 

How illogical indeed for some men, like the 
Anglicans, to admit the right of the Church 
in the first five centuries to define dogmas and 
deny it to her afterwards, when Christ promised 
to be always with His Church as the infallible 
guarantee of her true teaching (Matt, xxviii. 
20). 

Not all but only the chief doctrines of Chris- 
tianity are explicitly contained in the Apostles' 
Creed, although all are implicitly comprised in 
the article 11 1 believe in the Catholic Church/ ' 
The Church has the right to make new creeds 
to safeguard her doctrine against new heresies ; 
but a new creed does not imply new dogmas, 
but merely new and fuller explanations of the 
deposit of faith handed down from the be- 
ginning. (Newman, ' 1 Development of Chris- 
tian Doctrine"; Oxenham, "The Catholic 



The Question Box, 



Doctrine of the Atonement," Introd.; I^ivius, 
"The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers, " pp. i~ 
33, Introd.; Gibbons, " The Faith of Our Fath- 
ers," ch. ii. p. 30-35.) 

Has not your Church, in striving to maintain 
an impossible uniformity of belief, ever been the 
enemy of natural science ? 

How do you reconcile the teachings of your 
Church with the teachings of modern science ? 

The Catholic Church is not nor can she be 
the enemy of science. The truths of natural 
science cannot contradict the truths of revela- 
tion, for the same God is the author of both. 
Any apparent conflict, therefore, between 
science and religion arises from the fact that 
theologians have put forth their own views for 
the doctrines of the Church, or scientists have 
either been ignorant of the Church's teaching 
or put forth unproved hypotheses as undoubted 
truths. On this subject the Vatican Council 
says (Sess. III. ch. iv., On Faith and Reason) : 
" But although faith is above reason, there can 
never be any real discrepancy between faith 
and reason, since the same God who reveals 
mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the 
light of reason on the human mind ; and God 
cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever con- 
tradict truth. The false appearance of such a 
contradiction is mainly due, either to the dog- 



Unity. 141 

mas of faith not having been understood and 
expounded according to the mind of the 
Church, or to the inventions of opinion having 
been taken for the verdicts of reason. We de- 
fine, therefore, that every assertion contrary to 
a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false.' ' 
The Catholic Church has no direct mission 
to teach the truths of astronomy, biology, or 
geology ; her mission is to teach and defend 
the revelation of God. Yet she claims the 
right to proscribe all false scientific systems 
which are opposed to the deposit of faith. The 
true scientist, as a rule, is the most modest of 
men, never claiming absolute assent to what 
he knows is merely a working hypothesis for 
the advance of science. But the popularizes 
of science, who reach the people through the 
magazines and the Lcture platform, are often 
the most dogmatic of men, demanding accept- 
ance by all of hypotheses they themselves are 
incompetent to demonstrate, and declaiming 
against Christianity for refusing to swallow 
wholesale their theories of a day. So the Vati- 
can Council continues: ' 'The Church, which 
together with the Apostolic office of teaching, 
has received a charge to guard the deposit of 
faith, derives from God the right and the duty 
of proscribing false science, lest any should be 
deceived by philosophy and vain fallacy " (CoL 
ii. 8). 



142 



The Question Box. 



If men in the name of science, although with- 
out its warrant, deny the existence of God and 
the unity of the human race, or maintain the 
evolution of man, body and soul, from the 
monkey, the infallible Church of God in the 
name of truth denounces them as false teachers. 
But if, for example, men declare the six days 
of Genesis to be long epochs, and not days of 
twenty-four hours each, the Church has no 
quarrel with them. They have contradicted 
none of her dogmas. 

As a matter of fact, the Church has ren- 
dered great services to science, as we can see 
from the fact that the great universities 
of Italy, France, England, and Spain were 
founded before the Reformation. Indeed, even 
in the seventeenth century the great majority 
of scientists belonged to the secular and regular 
clergy. (Vaughan, "Science and Religion"; 
Zahm, "Science and Religion"; Zahm, "Bi- 
ble, Science, and Faith"; Ronayne, "Reli- 
gion and Science"; Wiseman, "Science and 
Revealed Religion"; Brennan, "What Catho- 
lics have done for Science"; Mo Hoy, "Geol- 
ogy and Revelation.") 

Are not all Christians agreed on essentials ? 
Why, then, worry about petty details of doctrine 
or ritual? 

The Catholic notion of diving 'faith is the 



Unity, 



143 



acceptance of all God's truth on His divine 
authority. To reject one doctrine the Son of 
God taught is to give Him the lie. He did not 
say to His Apostles : " Teach all nations what 
you deem essential and fundamental/ ' but 
i ' teach AUv things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you." 

If a friend were to relate to you an event he 
had witnessed in another city, and you accepted 
only what you deemed essential of his account, 
you would evidently consider him guilty of 
habitual lying or exaggeration. If he were a 
true speaker, every word must be believed. 
So with God, revealing His truth to men. 
The man of faith accepts all that God has 
spoken, once convinced of the fact of a reve- 
lation. 

The distinction of fundamental and non- 
fundamental doctrines, invented by Jurieu 
("Le Vrai Systeme de l'Eglise," p. 166) to 
cover in some way the evident lack of unity in 
Protestantism, is without warrant in reason 03 
Scripture, and is useless practically, for no 
agreement has ever been reached as to what 
doctrines are really fundamental. 

God is the Absolute Truth. How could He, 
then, declare it made no difference whether one 
denomination of Christians believed in the Trin- 
ity or another denied it? Whether one be- 
lieved Jesus Christ to be God, and another that 



144 



The Question Box. 



He was only man ? Whether one believed in 
the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and an- 
other that the Lord's supper meant mere bread 
and wine ? One of each of these contradictory 
statements must be false. It is not a mere ques- 
tion of petty detail, but of the essential unity of 
faith for which Christ prayed, "that they all 
may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in 
Thee, that they also may be one in Us ; that 
the world may believe that Thou hast sent 
Me " (John xvii. 21) . 

The Apostles always insist upon unity of 
belief in all Christ's doctrines, and the sins of 
schism and heresy are classed with drunken- 
ness, fornication, and murder (Gal. v. 20, 21). 
"I beseech you, brethren, . . . that you 
all speak the same thing, and that there be no 
schism among you" (I. Cor. i. 10); "One 
Lord, one faith, one baptism " (Eph. iv. 5) ; 
" For we being many, are one bread, one body 91 
(I. Cor. x. 17) ; " If any one preach to you a 
gospel besides that which you have received, 
let him be anathema " (Gal. i. 9) ; "I beseech 
you to mark them who make dissensions and 
offences contrary to the doctrine which yon 
have learned, and to avoid them" (Rom. xvi. 
17) ; u If any man come to you, and bring not 
this doctrine, receive him not into the house " 
(II. John i. 10). 

Indeed, the very existence of the different 



Unity, 



145 



sects of Protestantism proves their differences 
essential. If not, what was their reason of 
being ? To-day, perhaps, these differences are 
not so clearly marked, for indifferentism and 
unbelief have played sad havoc with the old 
doctrines, and ministers meet in synods to revise 
their worn-out, human creeds. 

St. Augustine in the fifth century answered 
this objection with regard to the Donatists of 
his day : i ' Both of us have baptism ; in that 
we are united. We have the same gospel; in 
this we are also united. They celebrate with 
us the feasts of martyrs ; in this we also agree. 
. . . But they are not with us in all things. 
They are not with us in their schism, they are 
not with us in their heresy. And by reason of 
those few things in which they are not with us, 
the many things on which they are with us 
avail them nothing " ("On the Unity of the 
Church/ ' ch. iii.) 

Are there not divisions and sects in the Catho- 
lic Church — i. e., Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. — 
who teach different doctrines? How, then, do 
you claim unity? 

No, the religious orders in the Catholic 
Church are not like the denominations of Prot- 
estantism, sects with creeds of their own de- 
vising. They have arisen from time to time 
to answer some great need of religion, which 



146 



The Question Box. 



demanded the example of a certain virtue, like 
the poverty of the Franciscan, or the obedi- 
ence of the Jesuit, or a special work to be done 
in charity, education, missions to the pagan, 
the ransom of captives, and the like. Every 
order holds exactly the same beliefs ; their only 
differences are in matters of opinion, in which 
every Catholic is left perfectly free. A vast 
difference between this and the denial of dog- 
mas of faith, whereof all the Protestant sects 
can plead* guilty. Cardinal Newman says on 
this point : " Augustinians, Dominicans, Fran- 
ciscans, Jesuits, and Carmelites have indeed 
their respective homes and schools ; but they 
have, in spite of all that, a common school and 
a common home in their Mother's bosom ; 
. . . but Protestants can but agree to differ. 
Quarrels, stopping short of divisions, do but 
prove the strength of the principle of combina- 
tion ; they are the token, not of the languor but 
of the vigor of its life. . . . The doctrines 
of faith are the common basis of the combat- 
ants, the ground on which they contend, their 
ultimate authority, and their arbitrating rule M 
("Diff. of Anglicans," vol. i. Lect. x. p. 261). 

Is not the bond of charity sufficient (John 
xiii. 34, 35), without insisting on dogmas and 
creeds ? 

The love of the brethren is indeed the corol- 



Unity, 



147 



lary of the one great commandment, the love 
of God. But Christians cannot be united in 
the true love of Jesus Christ, the teacher of 
the revelation of God, unless they accept His 
each and every teaching. " Without faith it is 
impossible to please God" (Heb. xi. 6) ; " He 
that believeth not shall be condemned " (Mark 
xvi. 16). St. Paul bases love on the unity 
of faith : " Careful to keep the unity of the 
Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and 
one Spirit ; as you are called in one hope of 
your calling. One Lord, one faith, one bap- 
tism" (Eph. iv. 3, 6). " Be of one mind, 
having the same charity, being of one accord, 
agreeing in sentiment" (Phil. ii. 2). 

It is ridiculous to claim unity for your 
Church. Were there not three Popes at one 
time? — i.e., during the Great Western Schism, 
A.D. 1378-1417. 

The great Schism of the West was by no 
means destructive of the unity of the Church, 
for no one during it ever denied the Papal 
supremacy. On the contrar}-, all were ready to 
admit the authority of the legitimate Pope if 
they could only be certain which one had the 
lawful succession. It was a controversy not 
about dogma, but about persons. It seems 
most probable that Urban VI. was validly 
elected, for during three months the cardinals 



148 



The Question Box. 



privately and officially acknowledged him as 
Pope. If so, he and his successors, Boniface 
IX., Innocent VII., and Gregory XII., were 
legitimate Pontiffs, and preserved the Church 
in unity, although many who did not recog- 
nize them were excusable because of their 
good faith. 



HOLINESS. 

Why do ycu claim to be a holy Church, when 
you must admit that many leaders in your 
Church — popes, bishops, and priests — have been 
corrupt and wicked men ? Christ said : " By their 
fruits you shall know them " (Matt. vii. 16). 

We readily admit that there have been a few 
wicked Popes, like Stephen VII. (a.d. 896), 
Benedict IX. (a.d. 1032), and Alexander VI. 
(a.d. 1480), out of a long line of 255 illustrious 
pontiffs, many of whom lived lives of heroic 
sanctit}', and even died for the faith of 
Christ. There was a Judas among the twelve 
Apostles. Many cardinals, bishops, and pre 
lates in high places have also been guilty 
of grave moral disorders. Worldliness, pride, 
avarice, lust, and drunkenness have charac- 
terized some pastors of Gcd's people, as the 
history of every ex- priest from the Reformers 
cown to the latest scandal in the daily news- 
paper clearly shows. 



Holiness. 



149 



Still, to any logical mind, all outcry against 
unworthy leaders or people in the Church is of 
no value or force whatsoever, unless it can be 
proved that their unworthiness is directly trace- 
able to the doctrines, worship, devotions, laws, 
or institutions of the Catholic Church. We 
do not judge the merits of an apple-tree from 
the rotten apples that lie in profusion upon 
the ground beneath it, but rather by the ripe 
fruit on the bough. So the Church of God 
is not to be judged by the wicked who refuse 
to obey her law r s or follow her teachings, but 
by the countless good souls who show forth 
her sanctity by their faithful following of 
Christ. And, indeed, every one with the 
slightest knowledge of history must admit that 
the Papacy, the episcopate, and the priest- 
hood have been the greatest factors for the 
moral and religious well-being of Christian- 
ity from the beginning. The Catholic Church 
can proudly point to Popes like L,eo the Great, 
Gregory the Great, Gregory VII., Innocent 
III., Pius V., and Leo XIII.; and to Bis- 
hops like Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Am- 
brose, Augustine, Patrick, Fisher, Fenelon, 
Manning, Hughes, Neumann, and Baraga. 
The Catholic people by their universal love 
and reverence for their priests testify to the 
world their high standard of virtue and sanc- 
tity. 4 'It appears to be the testimony of 



150 The Question Box. 

history/ ' writes Dean Maitland, 1 % that the 
monks and the clergy were in all times and 
places better than other people" (Preface to 
the "Dark Ages," p. 8). 

Is not your Church the only Church that does 
not demand moral character as a qualification for 
membership ? 

Why is it that you allow drunkards, rum- 
sellers, and boodlers to be members of your 
Church in good standing ? Are they in the fel- 
lowship ? Why are there so many wicked, poor, 
and ignorant in your Church ? 

An habitual drunkard, a saloon-keeper whose 
saloon is a proximate occasion of sin to him- 
self or others, a thief who is enjoying stolen 
property which he does not intend to restore — 
these are not members in good standing, for 
no unrepentant sinner is allowed to receive the 
sacraments in the Catholic Church. She, how- 
ever, does not pretend to be a social club for 
the elite, the outwardly respectable or the well- 
to-do, for, like Christ, she is universal, with 
a message for sinner and saint, rich and poor, 
cultured and ignorant. 

Christ came for sinners: "For the Son of 
Man is come to save that which was lost" 
(Matt, xviii. 11). "Iam not come to call the 
just, but sinners" (Matt. ix. 13). He loved 
the poor and the ignorant, and John the Bap- 



Holiness. 



151 



tist was told to recognize ' 1 the preaching of 
the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5) as 
one of the signs of His Messiasship. So the, 
Church, Christ's representative, never aban- 
dons the sinner, but, like another Christ, goes 
after the lost sheep that she may win them 
back to the fold. Her priesthood, her Mass, 
her sacraments, her devotions, her missions — 
all are for the sinner. She is the Church 
also of the poor, for at our altars all are 
equal — "all are one in Christ Jesus " (Gal. 
iii. 28). 

I remember meeting a Unitarian minister 
from Vermont in Boston, last June, who told 
me that he was about to resign his ministry, 
because his efforts to reach out to the poor 
of his city had been met by the decided pro- 
test of the rich members of his fashionable 
congregation. The Church of God knows no 
such distinction. How false the notion of the 
Reformation, that the Church of the living 
God ought to be composed merely of the elect. 
Such is not the teaching of Christ, as we learn 
from the parables of the cockle and the wheat 
(Matt. xiii. 24-30), the net of good and bad 
fish (xiii. 47), the flock of sheep and goats 
(xxv. 32), the house containing vessels of honor 
and vessels of dishonor (II. Tim. ii. 20). So 
shall it be until the harvest come, until the 
final eternal separation at the day of Judgment, 



152 



The Question Box. 



Are there not many illustrious men and women 
to be found in our several churches, and good 
souls by the thousands striving their best to 
follow the Lord Jesus? Why is it that you 
Catholics claim exclusively to be "a holy 
Church »? 

Yes, undoubtedly, many outside the body 
of the Catholic Church, and even among the 
pagans, have been remarkable for their natu- 
ral virtues ; and often they had supernatural 
faith, hope, and charity, which they possessed 
in virtue of their union with the soul of God's 
Church. But the holiness of these individuals 
of the several churches is not due to the sect 
to which they belong, but to the Catholic 
Church, many of whose teachings and prin- 
ciples their sect still retains. Their errors 
and schism of themselves are destructive, and 
lead millions of their followers into indifferent- 
ism and unbelief. To say nothing of the im- 
moral heresies of early and mediaeval church 
history, the principles distinctively Protestant 
(thank goodness that many Protestants are bet- 
ter than their principles !) do not make for holi- 
ness of life. 

The Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith 
alone is essentially immoral, and has, in union 
with the other demoralizing principle of pri- 
vate judgment in matters of faith, led logi- 
cally to the reaction of the common Protestant 



Holiness. 



153 



creed of to-day, indifferentism or justification 
by works alone, which is only a step removed 
from outright unbelief. 

The most logical system of the Reformation, 
Calvinism, by making God the author of sin, 
utterly destroyed the very basis of morality. 
No wonder that men to-day are striving to 
revise their original sixteenth century creed. 

The Reformation also deprived men of many 
divine aids to holiness. The Mass, which ap- 
plies the merits of Christ's atonement to the 
individual soul, was abolished ; the priesthood 
with its apostolic mission to preach, and its 
celibacy that insured a greater devotion for the 
people's service, was done away with ; the 
seven sacraments, which sanctified the whole 
life of the Christian from his birth to the 
grave, were denied for the most part, and 
false views held and lax practice followed 
in regard to the two (Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper) they retained ; the greatest bulwark 
against wickedness the world ever knew, con- 
fession, was set at naught ; the precepts of 
fasting and abstinence, which tend so much 
to the eminently Christian virtues of mortifica- 
tion and self-denial, were rendered obsolete ; 
the love and veneration of the Blessed Virgin 
and the saints of God were strangely enougji 
turned to hatred, and men deprived of their 
wonderful examples of every Christian virtue ; 



154 



The Question Box. 



the counsels of the Saviour — poverty, chastity, 
and obedience — were forgotten, and the ideal 
of the religious life lost ; the beautiful symbol- 
ism of the Church, which had fostered so much 
the spirit of devotion by giving it outer ex- 
pression, fell before the vandalism of these so- 
called reformers ; in a word, Protestantism with 
its denial of many of the doctrines of the gos- 
pel, and its discarding of most of the means 
of grace, cannot claim to be that ' ' glorious 
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any 
such thing, but that it should be holy, and 
without blemish" (Eph. v. 27). ~ 

The Catholic Church claims exclusively the 
mark of holiness, because her Founder is the 
L,ord Jesus Christ, and because she alone has 
kept inviolate every dogma and every com- 
mandment and counsel that He taught. She 
has kept from the beginning all the means 
of grace and sanctity wherewith Christ en- 
dowed her — the Mass, the seven sacraments, 
and prayer. She holds up to her children the 
example of the Saviour, and His perfect fol- 
lowers, the saints; she urges the sinner^ to 
repent, promising him the mercy and love of 
God in the sacraments of penance and the 
Eucharist ; she encourages them to read the 
Scriptures and other devout books, like the 
"Imitation of Christ,' ' and to listen as fre- 
quently as possible to the Word of God ; her 



Holiness. 



155 



laws of fasting, abstinence, attendance at Sun- 
day Mass, and yearly confession and com- 
munion, help wonderfully to encourage the 
spirit of devotion and self-denial. Only in her 
fold are the Gospel Counsels followed by thou- 
sands of devout souls, whose zeal and charity 
are written large in the history of Christian 
civilization. A great multitude of saints be- 
long to her — men and women of every race and 
country $ who lived lives of heroic sanctity 
and proved by their miracles that they were 
blessed by God. 

Why is it that Catholic nations, like Italy 
and Spain, are less prosperous and progressive 
than Protestant nations, like England, Germany, 
and the United States ? 

Why is it the Catholic nations are so much in- 
ferior to the Protestant in the scale of civilization? 

It seems to many Protestants that one of 
the most conclusive arguments against the 
Catholic Church is the present material pros- 
perity of certain Protestant nations. I do not 
believe that lectures are ever given to non- 
Catholics in our country without this objection 
being presented in some form or other. And 
yet it is the old pagan difficulty answered in 
the fifth century by St. Augustine ; it is the 
pagan scoff of the apostate Emperor Julian. 

Jesus Christ never made wealth or material 



156 



The Question Box, 



greatness a matk of His true Church. On the 
contrary, from His words a student of the 
Scriptures would draw a totally different con- 
clusion. He declares that no man can serve 
God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 24), and de- 
nounces riches as one of the greatest obstacles 
to the Kingdom of Heaven: "Woe to you 
that are rich ; for you have your consolation " 
(Iyuke vi. 24) ; "It is easier for a camel to 
pass through the eye of a needle, than for a 
rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven " 
(Matt. xix. 24); "My kingdom is not of this 
world" (John xviii. 36); "What doth it 
profit a man if he gain the whole world, and 
suffer the loss of his own soul?" (Matt, 
xvi. 26). , 

The falsity of the argument of national pros- 
perity as a mark of the divine favor is at once 
shown, when we observe in the course of his- 
tory, pagan, Catholic, and Protestant nations 
alike standing out pre-eminently in worldly 
greatness. Must we blasphemously declare 
that the unchangeable God of truth approves 
of different religions in turn, no matter what 
irrational or immoral doctrines they hold? 
Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome — all were once 
mighty and prosperous nations. Were the 
Jews under the slavery of Pharao, or the 
early Christians who worshipped in the under- 
ground catacombs of Rome, professors of a 



Holiness. 



157 



false religion because at the time not blessed 
with worldly goods? 

Again, the criterion works both ways. Was 
the Catholic Church true when Spain ruled 
the world at the beginning of the sixteenth 
century, and false when she to-day no longer 
claims a place among the first powers of Europe? 
Was the Protestantism of Holland true in the 
seventeenth century, when she did the carry- 
ing trade of Europe, and false now in the period 
of her decline ? * 1 

- If we apply the argument to an individual, 
we can at once grasp its inanity. Mr. A. of 
New York is worth some hundreds of niillions 
of dollars ; therefore he is the best man in the 
United States ! We may find some of our mil- 
lionaires good Christian men, but we do not 
find that as a class the very wealthy neces- 
sarily stand forth as pre-eminent in the Chris- 
tian virtues of self-denial, humility, meekness, 
purity, honesty, and the like. 

There are many factors that go towards mak- 
ing a country wealthy and prosperous ; but 
they are due rather to natural resources, the 
energy, intelligence and economy, and often: 
thievery, of individuals — rather than to re- 
ligion. 

The instituting of a comparison between 
Catholicity and Protestantism as a civilizing 
force is a most difficult undertaking, for there 



158 



The Question Box, 



are many factors to be considered. A man 
must have a perfect grasp of what is meant 
by the term civilization; he must consider it 
in its various aspects, economic, social, politic 
cal, moral, and religious ; he must take into 
account all the influences that favor or retard 
it, viz.: climatic and racial conditions ; he must 
take a period when Catholicity or Protestant- 
ism is still a livirg, vital force, and know well 
the proportion of Catholics, Protestants, and 
infidels in a country ; he must appreciate w r ell 
the fact that nations, I ke individuals, have 
their time of birth, growth, and decay. Men 
may speak of the United States as a Prot- 
estant country; and }~et if cue were to 
count the church-going Christians, the Catho- 
lic Church could readily claim half the num- 
ber. There are undoubtedly more indifferent- 
ists than Protestants in these United States, 
According to our questioner's logic, our na- 
tional prosperity then is due to our infidelity, 
and not to the country's natural wealth, and 
the sturdiness of the American character. 

However, Catholics are glad to challenge 
any comparison when it comes to morality and 
religion. In this regard we strongly com- 
mend to our non- Catholic friends the chapters 
on education, pauperism, crime, drunkenness, 
suicide, illegitimacy, prostitution, divorce, etc., 
in that interesting volume of Father Alfred 



Holiness. 159 

Young, " Catholic and Protestant Countries 
Compared/ ' Catholic Book Exchange, New 
York, 1898. We are perfectly willing that 
the statistics on these matters should be care- 
fully considered. (Read also Balmes, " Catho* 
licity and Protestantism Compared"; J. S. 
Vaughan, " Faith and Folly," pp. 432-466; 
Ricards, " Catholic Christianity and Modern 
Unbelief," ch. xiv. p. 277; Spalding, "Es- 
says," p. 156; Schanz, "A Christian Apol- 
ogy," vol. iii. ch. xv.; "The Church and 
Civilization.") 

Does not your Church teach that it is lawful 
to lie to Protestants? 

How can we " heretics " believe any state- 
ment you may make, when one of your funda- 
mental teachings, as set forth in the Council of 
Constance, declares that " Faith need not be 
kept with heretics " ? Was not the safe-conduct 
granted by this council to John Huss violated 
on this very principle ? 

The Catholic Church never taught that it 
was lawful to lie or break faith with any one. 
She has always considered lying as intrinsically 
evil, according to the eighth commandment: 
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against 
thy neighbor." An honest inquirer after truth 
has merely to read the words of the decree 
(cited by Alzog, " Universal Church History," 



3f6o The Question Box. 

vol. ii. p. 964) to recognize the utter dis- 
honesty of the above accusation. This false 
principle was preached and acted on by Protest- 
ants in Ireland after the treaty of Iyimerick 
in 1691. 

This calumny has been refuted time and 
time again, as by Eethmathius in 1544, Copus 
in 1581, Campion in 1585, Molanus in 161 1, Ros- 
weidt and Sweert in 1608, 1609, 161 1, Becanus 
in 1612, Marquez in 1645, etc. (cf. Hergenrother, 
" Church and State,' ' Essay xvi.; Jungmann, 
V Church History," vi. p. 339 ; Hefele, " His- 
tory of the Councils," vol. vii. p. 767, cited 
in the Catholic University Bulletin, July, 1896, 
pp. 380, 381). 

The Council of Constance never granted a 
safe-conduct to John Huss. The Emperor Sig- 
ismund did, but his letter was merely a pass- 
port commending Huss to all the officials of 
the empire in order to assure him protection 
from violence on his way to the Council. It 
by no means protected him from the due course 
of the law of the empire, which in the fifteenth 
century regarded heresy as a civil offence pun- 
ishable by death. This is evident from the 
safe-conduct itself, the address of the Bohe- 
mian nobles of the council, and the letter of 
Sigismund to the King of Aragon on this very 
point (Alzog, "Church Hist.," vol. ii. pp, 
952-967). 



Holiness. 



161 



What is the attitude of your Church on the 
temperance question ? 

How can you explain the fact that so large a 
proportion of liquor dealers are regular atten- 
dants of your Church, in good standing? Are 
they not responsible for most of the sin and mis- 
ery of the present time ? They are not on the 
books of any Protestant Church. 

The Catholic Church regards intemperance 
as a great vice, which carries in its train many 
other sins, such as anger, blasphemy, neglect 
of Mass and the sacraments, murder, lust, 
theft. Catholics realize that the drink evil is 
the fruitful cause of pauperism, insanity, dis- 
ease, death, corruption in citizenship, and the 
destruction of home life. 

The Church declares temperance, or modera- 
tion in the use of drink, binding upon all 
under penalty of sin. She declares total ab- 
stinence binding upon all who find in drink 
the proximate occasion of sin, as is the case 
with the habitual drunkard. She counsels 
total abstinence to all for four reasons : first, 
as a protest against a public abuse in our 
country ; second, as an example to the weaker 
brethren (Rom. xiv. 21) ; third, as a practice 
of self-denial ; fourth, as a reparation for the 
sins committed by the drunkard. 

The mind of the Church can be seen from the 
words of the Bishops of the United States in 



The Question Box, 



the Second Council of Baltimore, 1866, No. 470 : 
41 Since the very worst scandals owe their ori- 
gin to excess in drink, we exhort pastors, and 
we implore them for the love of Jesus Christ, 
to devote all their energies to the extirpation 
of the vice of intemperance. To that end we 
deem worthy of praise the zeal of those who, 
the better to guard against excess, pledge 
themselves to total abstinence"; No. 469: 
" Let pastors frequently warn their flocks to 
shun saloons, and let them repel from the Sac- 
raments liquor-dealers who encourage the 
abuses of drink, especially 011 Sunday." \i 
The Third Council of Baltimore, held in 
1884, declares, No. 263: "We admonish 
Catholics engaged in the sale of intoxicating 
liquors to consider seriously how many and 
how great are the dangers and the occasions 
of sin which their business, though not in it- 
self illicit, is surrounded. Let them, if pos- 
sible, choose some more honorable way of 
making a living. And if they find it impossi- 
ble to quit it, then let them strive with all their 
might to remove the occasions of sin from them- 
selves and from others. Let them not sell 
drink either to minors, or to those who they 
foresee will go to excess. Let them keep 
their saloons closed on the Lord's day. Let 
them at no time permit 011 their premises blas- 
phemy, cursing, or obscene language. But if 



Holiness. J 63 

through their action, or with their co-opera- 
tion, religion is dishonored and men are led to 
ruin, let them remember that there is an 
Avenger in heaven, who will certainly de- 
mand of them a terrible retribution." 

A Catholic saloon-keeper, whose saloon is 
evidently an occasion of sin to others, is not a 
Catholic in good standing. For although he 
may attend Sunday Mass, he cannot approach 
the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist 
until he promise amendment. Membership 
with us, however, does not mean enrollment 
on the church's books, but is a right God- 
given in the sacrament of baptism. No matter 
how low a man may have fallen, the Church 
is always ready, like Christ, to raise him up 
again. Public excommunication is a penalty 
she rarely employs. 

Do the Jesuits teach that a gcod end justifies a 
bad means ? 

No ; although this calumny is repeated time 
and time again despite its frequent refutation. 
It is evident that those who make this cha-ge 
are ignorant of the very first principles of Catho- 
lic ethics, unless we are to ascribe their false 
statements to downright malice. The teach- 
ing of Catholic theology is plain : If a man per- 
form a good action for a bad purpose, or a bad 



The Question Box, 



action for a good purpose, his conduct in both 
instances' is immoral. Conduct, to be good, 
always presupposes two conditions : first, that 
conscience declare the act good in itself ; and 
second, that it declare the intention good with 
which it is performed. Thus, Clement VII. did 
not grant a divorce to Henry VIII., even 
though its granting might have saved England 
to the Church, for divorce is contrary to the 
law of Christ ; or again, the Catholic Church 
absolutely forbids craniotomy, even though a 
physician might declare it the saving of a 
mother's life. We challenge, therefore, our ob- 
jector to bring forward one passage from any 
approved theologian — Jesuit or not — who main- 
tains that a good end justifies a bad means. 

We hold, on the contrary, that this was a 
principle of Martin I^uther. He w T ith other Re- 
formers allowed the I^andgrave of Hesse to have 
two wives, the better to be continent, and 
again urged him to deny publicly that Margaret 
von Sala was his real wife, to avoid scandal. 
Here plainly we find polygamy and lying justi- 
fied ; and the principle set forth that it is law- 
ful to do evil that good may come. (Verres, 
"L,ife of I^uther," ch. xxi. pp. 312 et seq.) 

Frequently in this country and abroad the 
Jesuits and Catholic laymen have offered thou- 
sands of dollars to the Protestant who could 
produce one Jesuit author who had given utter* 



Mental Reservation. 165 

ance to this false teaching. The challenge has 
never been accepted save to the discomfiture 
of the challenger, as in one instance of its ac- 
ceptance at the University of Heidelburg in 
1872. Iyittledale's statement in the "Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica," vol. xiii. p. 691, is a mali- 
cious calumny, as any one can see by consult- 
ing any Jesuit theologian {American Catholic 
Quarterly , 1888, p. 119). 



MENTAIy RESERVATION. 

How can Catholics ever be trusted in view of 
your doctrine of mental reservations? 

Does the Catholic Church teach absolute truth* 
fulness in all things, small and great? 

The essence of a lie consists in saying the 
contrary of what is thought, and every lie 
necessarily implies the will to deceive. The 
unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians 
• from and before the time of St. Augustine has 
been that a lie is intrinsically and absolutely 
evil, as opposed to the very nature of man and 
society, No reason can ever justify it. 

A mental reservation, or restriction, is the 
limitation of an affirmative or negative. If not 
verbally expressed, it can be either known by 
the circumstances or else it is purely mental. 
A purely mental reservation being equivalent 



The Question Box. 



to a lie, is never lawful. Reservation not pure- 
ly mental— that is, equivocation — is in general 
forbidden, because language is intended to ex- 
press thoughts, not to hide them. It is, how- 
ever, allowed for a just cause, in virtue of the 
principle of morals, that we can lawfully per- 
form an act having two effects, the one gocd 
and the other evil, whenever the good effect is 
paramount to the bad. Thus, a servant could 
say to a visitor whom her mistress did not w r ant 
to receive, (< Not at home," or a priest or any 
professional man when asked a secret could 
ausw T er, n I do not know"; in both instances 
the limiting of the negation can be gathered 
from the circumstances. Surely the Catholic 
teaching is much more strict than that of Prot- 
estant writers and theologians, such as Melanc- 
thon, Bodin, Gentilis, Grotius, Pufendorf, 
Heineccius, Cocceius, Jeremy Taylor, John- 
son, Paley, and others, who permit lying when 
the person addressed has no right to the truth. 
Are w r e, then, to distrust Protestants in view of 
this lax teaching ? 

No sensible man can deny the lawfulness ol 
mental reservations once he understands our 
teaching. It is witnessed to in the Gospels. 
Our Lord said that He would not go up to the 
Holy City on the feast-day, not wishing to go 
there publicly with His disciples, but after- 
wards in secret (John vii. 8, 10) ; He said 



Superstition. 



167 



again that He knew not the day of the judg- 
ment, implying that He was not at liberty to 
disclose it (Mark xiii. 32). 

Why are Catholics so superstitious? 

I know Catholics who think a scapular will 
save them from drowning, a miraculous medal 
in a house will prevent it from burning, the 
swallowing of a picture-stamp will cure a per- 
son better than medicines, etc. Is this not super- 
stition ? 

Is it sinful to consult fortune-tellers ? 
Do Catholics believe in dreams ? 

Catholics regard superstition as undoubtedly a 
sin against the first commandment, and therefore 
on principle are less apt to be superstitious 
than the average Protestant or infidel. 

Superstition consists in ascribing to certain 
things or happenings a power they do not pos- 
sess, naturally or supematurally. 

It is superstition to consider Friday an un- 
lucky day, to regard thirteen at table as pro- 
phetical of evil, to carry about with one a lucky 
coin, to read dream books td interpret the future, 1 
to consult fortune-tellers, palmists, and other 
charlatans, and the like. 

It is not superstition in Catholics to wear 
medals, crosses, or scapulars blessed by the 
Church of God (I. Tim. iv. 5), thereby calling 
to mind Christ Jesus, His Mother, and. the 



The Question Box. 



saints; but if one were to attribute to these 
sacred articles powers they do not possess, then 
he is guilty of superstition. 

" We clutch eagerly/ ' writes Father Tyrrell, 
(< at a miraculous medal, a girdle, an infallible 
prayer, a scapular, a novena, a pledge, a vow- 
all helps, in their way, all excellent if used 
rightly as stimulants to greater exertion ; but 
if adopted as substitutes for labor, for the eter- 
nally necessary and indispensable means, then, 
no longer helps, but most hurtful supersti- 
tions " ("External Religion, 99 pp. 89-90). . 

Pagan peoples, lacking the knowledge of the 
one true God, are naturally superstitious, at- 
tributing wonderful power to idols of wood and 
stone, wearing amulets to protect themselves 
against disease and death, invoking spirits by 
magical formulae, etc. In our own day, the 
pagan augurs, astrologers, and medicine men 
have their counterpart in the modern super- 
stitions born of a decadent Protestantism, spir- 
itism, Christian Science, theosophy, palmistry, 
and the like. Unbelief, craving for the truth 
of God it does not possess, naturally finds satis- 
faction in various superstitious beliefs and 
practices. 

What do you think of the "Monita Seer eta sr 
of the Jesuits? 

The * * Monita Secreta ' ' is a deliberate, calum- 



Catholicity. 



I69 



nious forgery, published for the first time in 
1612 at Cracovia, Poland, and probably written 
by the apostate Jesuit, Jerome Zaorowski. It 
was condemned by the Congregation of the In- 
dex at Rome in 16 16 as an impudent forgery, 
and conclusively proved to be so by the Jesuit 
Fathers Gretser (a. d. 1617) and Huylenbrowcq 
(a. r>. 1713). It has been edited many times 
by the enemies of the Jesuits — 1662, 1669, 1702, 
1719, 1761 — although many opponents of the 
Church, like Paulus and Huber, grant that it is 
not authentic. It is on a par with the false 
encyclicals published by the A. P. A. in the 
United States some ten years since, and ac- 
cepted by the stupid and ignorant as genuine. 
Error is naturally driven to defend itself by 
calumny and lying. 



CATHOLICITY. 

Why do Catholics make exclusive claim to the 
title of Catholic ? We Protestants claim the 
name in like manner, for we say in the Apos- 
tles' Creed: "I believe in the Catholic, i.e., 
Christian Church.' 9 

Are not Protestants everywhere in the world 
to-day spreading the gospel of the Christ ? i 

Who are the more numerous to-day, Catholics 
or Protestants ? 

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was a catho- 



170 The Question Box. 

lie, or universal, teacher of the divine revela- 
tion. His gospel was not merely for the Jews 
of Palestine in the first century, but for all 
times and places. The Church that represents 
Him, therefore, must also be a catholic, or 
universal, teacher of divine revelation. She 
must bear upon her brow the stamp of uni- 
versality, and by her extension in time and 
place ever stand forth pre-eminently as the 
one unchanging faith the Saviour taught. 
This is shown plainly in the Scriptures. (1) 
She is catholic in time : "Behold I am with 
you all days even to the consummation of the 
world" (Matt, xxviii. 20); "The gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. xvi. 
18). (2) She is catholic territorially : "Teach 
ye all nations' ' (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; "Go ye 
into the whole world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature" (Mark xvi. 15; Gen. xii. 3; 
xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14; Ps. ii. 8; xxi. 28; lxxi. 
8; Isa 9 ii. 2; xlix. 6; Mai. i. 11 ; Acts i. 8; 
Rom. i. 5 ; I. Tim. ii. 4-6). (3) She is catho- 
lic in witty of all doctrine : ' ' Teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you" (Matt, xxviii. 20). 

Catholicity as a distinctive mark of the 
Church of Christ does not mean that she must 
exist in every country of the world at once, 
but that she have within her the germ of growth 
and development, which in the course of the 



Catholicity. 



171 



centuries no human power can ever success- 
fully retard. She must ever be a missionary 
Church, and though by heresy and schism 
many may go forth from her (I. John ii. 19), 
she will as a matter of fact be far more numer- 
ous than any, and stand forth with so universal 
a unity of government, doctrine, and the means 
of grace as to witness to her unique claim 
of teacher of the complete gospel of Jesus 
Christ. 

Protestantism can never claim the title of 
Catholic, for it is built on the disintegrating 
principle of private judgment, every man discuss- 
ing at will the meaning of a mysterious Bible, 
of which he possesses no certain interpretation. 
The germ of error, discord, contradiction, and 
denial is within the bosom of Protestantism, and 
therefore its tendency is neither to maintain 
Christianity nor to spread it in the universal 
unity which it should possess. Again, Protest- 
antism is not Catholic in iime y for it did not 
dawn upon the world until the sixteenth cen- 
tury, and we need more than the mere word of 
men of the stamp of Luther, Calvin, Henry 
VIII., or Knox to bridge the chasm that divides 
them from the beginning. The denominations 
are known by the name of their founders, who, 
without any commission, assumed to have 
unearthed a forgotten gospel ; they are over 
1,500 years too late to be in any sense Catholic. 



172 The Question Box. 

Nor is it Catholic territorially , for, strange 
enough, for over two hundred years it 
manifested no missionary spirit whatsoever, 
but, identified with the princes upon whose 
favor it flourished and grew, it kept with- 
in national and local lines, caring nothing 
for the pagan in distant lands. And in our 
day, when Protestantism has reached out its 
hand to the pagan, its success has been 
ridiculously small, as its own ministers tes- 
tify, despite the expenditure of many millions, 
and the distribution of countless copies of 
the Bible (Marshall's "Christian Missions"; 
Canon Taylor, Fortnightly Review ', Oct., 1888; 
Dublin Review, ^an., 1889; Nineteenth Century , 
July, 1888). * i 

Nor is it Catholic in matters of doctrine, for 
the various denominations deny many doctrines 
of Christ's gospel. Each voices a different 
interpretation of His teaching, and allows, 
even within the limits of one sect, all manner 
of doctrine, from the denial of such elementary 
Christian teachings as the Trinity and the In- 
carnation to the holding of all the doctrines 
of the Catholic Church minus Papal infallibil- 
ity. ^ Since the Reformation the tendency has 
ever been towards infidelity, and the average 
Protestant to-day indignantly repudiates the 
teachings of Luther or Calvin, and frequently 
is an indifferent^ in matters of belief. 



Catholicity. 



173 



On the other hand, the Catholic Church is 
Catholic in time, for she goes back to the be- 
ginning, and no man can trace any other origin 
for her than Jesus Christ and His Apostles. 

She is Catholic territorially, for there is 
nothing local in her constitution. She is just 
as much at home in a republic as in a mon- 
archy ; she has her message for the cultured 
American or the barbarian of mid-A&'ica ; she 
ministers to the multi-millionnaire and then to 
the poor of the tenement- house ; she speaks to 
the greatest saint and to the most degraded 
sinner. Like Christ, she is for all men, for all 
places. A striking illustration of her uni- 
versal jurisdiction was the Vatican Council 
in 1870. 

She is Catholic in doctrine, for although 
growing and developing as Providence guides 
her, making new definitions of old doc- 
trines as new errors arise to confuse the 
minds of men and render clearer statements 
necessary — she is ever the same unchanging 
Church, guarding infallibly the divine deposit 
of the one gospel of Christ, under the divine 
guarantee of the abiding presence of Christ 
(Matt, xxviii. 20) and the Holy Spirit (John 
xiv. 17). 

Catholics are more numerous to-day than 
Protestants, although in this matter exact stk 
tistics are difficult to obtain. I quote sonc 



174 



The Question Box. 



authorities cited by Tanquery ("Synopsis 
Theol. Dog.," vol. i. pp. 419, 420): 

Catholics. Protestants. Greeks. 

O. Werner ( Cath. )» 
Orbis Terrarum 

Catholicus, . 230,000,000 215,000,000 
The Bible Atlas 

(Prot), . . . 172,000,000 208,000,000 
Belim & Wagner 

(Prot.) (Schaff, 

Erzog, Encyc., 

p. 2058), . . . 215,938,500 130,329,000 84,007,000 
Tablet (Oct. 17, 

1885), .... 275,000,000 
Groffier (Cath.?), 

Planisphere 

d e s R e 1 i- 

gions, .... 212,100,000 123,800,000 83,810,000 

Why do you deny us Episcopalians the title of 
Catholic? We claim to be Anglo-Catholics, not 
Roman Catholics. 

Is not the Established Church of England one 
and the same with the Church that existed in 
England prior to the Reformation ? 

Did not the early English Church deny the 
supreme jurisdiction of the Roman See ? 

Catholics deny that Episcopalians have any 
claim whatsoever to the title of Catholic, for at 
the time of the Reformation they broke away 
from the centre of Catholic unity ; denied the 
Papal Supremacy, always recognized by their 



Catholicity. 



175 



forefathers, to acknowledge the spirituals-su- 
premacy of the sovereign ; denied many fun- 
damental Catholic doctrines ; abolished the 
ancient Catholic discipline; proscribed utterly 
the Catholic liturgy, and in a word became 
Protestants of the Protestants. 

It is not difficult to prove that the Church of 
England prior to the Reformation was in union 
with all Christendom, Roman Catholic in gov- 
ernment, doctrine, and ritual, and that it un- 
derwent an essential change in all of these 
when it became by law established under the 
Tudor sovereigns. 

The spiritual supremacy of the Pope was 
never denied in England until the time of 
Henry VIII. It is undoubted history that the 
Archbishops of Canterbury, the Primates of the 
English Church, were not recognized until 
their appointment had been confirmed by the 
Pope ; at their consecration and investiture 
with the pallium, which the Pope sent as a 
symbol of their jurisdiction (Protestant Bishop 
Stubbs, "Constitutional History," vol. iii. p. 
305), they swore " to defend the Roman Papacy 
against all men, to obey the commands of the 
Holy See with their whole strength, and to 
^ause them to be obeyed by others' 9 (Rymer's 
^Fcedera," vol. vi. p. 80, ed. 1741). In their 
letters they continually call themselves the 
"Legates of the Apostolic See" and declare 



1/6 The Question Box. 

" their service and obedience' 9 to the Roman 
Pontiff (Letter of Archbishop Chicheley to Mar- 
tin V., 1426 a.d.; Haddan and Stubbs, " Ecc. 
Councils," iii. 448, 541). 

The English Bishops before the Reformation 
were never recognized without the Pope's con- 
firmation, and as a rule w r ere directly appointed 
by him. The oath at their consecration ran as 
follows: "I will be faithful and obedient to 
Blessed Peter and the Roman Church, and to 

my Lord the Pope N , so help me God and 

these God's holy Gospels." Again, all im- 
portant cases of trial were referred by the 
Bishops to Rome as the Supreme Court of Ap« 
peal (Stubbs, " Const. Hist.," vol. iii. p. 315), 
and its jurisdiction continually recognized by 
the appeals of various kings regarding episco- 
pal appointments, by their applying for dispen- 
sations (Edward the Confessor in favor of West- 
minster, Henry VII. to be freed from his Cru- 
sade promise, Henry VII. to marry within the 
prohibited degrees), the acceptance of papal 
excommunications and interdicts, the receiving 
of Papal legates, the presence- of English 
Bishops in councils called by the Pope, etc 
Sixty-eight Archbishops succeeded St. Augus- 
tine in the See of Canterbury, each one of 
whom received the pallium from Rome. We 
know full well that there were many protests to 
Rome against the appointment ef foreigners to 



Catholicity. 



177 



English benefices, the demands of money made 
by the Papal court, and the interference of some 
Popes in the civil affairs of England. But 
while questioning some of the feudal rights of 
the Pope, the English kings and people never 
for an instant questioned his spiritual suprema- 
cy. They held with the Venerable Bede (Hist., 
lib. ii. c. i.) that "the Pope (Gregory) was 
invested with the first, i.e., supreme pontificate 
in the whole world, and was set over the 
Churches converted to the true faith, making 
our nation, till then given up to idols, the 
Church of Christ." 

From the sixth to the sixteenth century the 
Catholic Church in England flourished and 
grew, as every other part of Christendom, in 
union with Rome. Under Henry VIII., for 
the first time in her history, did England deny 
the supremacy of the Pope, and cut itself off 
from the body of Christendom. This monarch, 
having tried for a long time to persuade Pope 
Clement VII. to annul his marriage with Queen 
Catherine that he might marry his mistress, 
Anne Boleyn, determined to take the law in his 
own hands, and constitute himself supreme by 
act of Parliament. " By the Act of Supremacy, 
authority in all matters ecclesiastical was vested 
solely in the Crown. The courts spiritual be- 
came as thoroughly the King's courts as the 
temporal courts at Westminster. The statute 



1 7 8 



The Question Box. 



ordered (1534) that tlie King ' sliall be taken, 
accepted, and reputed the only supreme head 
on earth of the Church of England, and shall 
have and enjoy, annexed and united to the 
Imperial Crown of this realm, as well the title 
and state thereof as all the honors, jurisdic- 
tions, authorities, immunities, profits, and com- 
modities to the said dignity belonging, with 
full power to visit, repress, redress, reform, and 
amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, con- 
tempts, and enormities, which by any manner 
of spiritual authority or jurisdiction might or 
may lawfully be reformed 9 99 (Green's " History 
of the English People," vol. ii. book v. p. 159, 
Harper's edition). 

By this act the national Church of England 
came into existence, and the Tudor sovereigns 
and their parliaments became the origin of 
church jurisdiction and the arbiters of church 
doctrine and ritual. The idea of the Church 
as a kingdom, independent, sovereign, catholic, 
and supernatural was for ever lost, and a reli' 
gious body under the government of the sove« 
reign came into existence dependent, national, 
and natural. It had no living voice, for it had 
ceased to be the divine institution of Jesus 
Christ. This essential change in government 
placed the Church of England in unmistakable 
schism, and forfeited at once the title of this 
state establishment to the term Catholic. Mefi 



Catholicity. 



179 



like Sir Thomas More, the Chancellor of Eng- 
land, and Henry's preceptor, Bishop Fisher of 
Rochester, recognized this at once, and died on 
the scaffold, rather than, as More said in his 
famous defence, "to conform my conscience to 
the counsel of one kingdom against the general 
consent of all Christendom.' 1 

Under Edward VI., who claimed the same 
supremacy, another step was made towards the 
Protestantization of the Church of England, 
by the change in doctrine and ritual evidenced 
by the Book of Common Prayer (1548), the 
forty-two articles (1553), the new catechism, 
and the book of homilies, all of which were 
markedly Protestant in tone (Green, ibid. % 
pp. 226, 233, 234). All the altars in the 
churches were removed by order of the Royal 
Council s and communion tables substituted, ths 
object being expressly stated, "to move the 
people from the superstitions of the Popish 
Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper." 
Repealed under Mary, these statutes of the 
Royal Supremacy were re-enacted under Eliza- 
beth by the Parliament of 1558 (Green, t&id., 
p. 303) England became Protestant, a new 
Protestant hierarchy being substituted for the 
old Catholic Bishops. Elizabeth exacted the 
oath of supremacy which no Catholic could 
lawfully take, enforced the Act of Uniformity 
in a public worship which no Catholic could 



180 The Question Box, 

■ .... ' 1 .1 7 1 

conscientiously attend, and made (1563) thirty- 
nine of the Calvinistic articles drawn up undef 
Edward VI. the standard of faith of the Eng- 
lish Protestant clergy (Green, ibid. y p. 343)0 
Strange, therefore, that to-day many High" 
Churchmen in England and in this country 
repudiate Protestantism and the Reformation^ 
and, ignoring the facts of history and the anti- 
Catholic denials of the teaching authority of 
the Church, transubstantiation> the Mass, the 
seven sacraments, purgatory, devotion to the 
Blessed Virgin and the saints, etc., claim the 
name of Catholic. But their claim is merely 
based on the frail foundation of Protestant 
private judgment, and is denied by the major- 
ity of their brethren, the other denominations 
of Protestantism, the Greek schismatics, and 
the Catholic Church. Imagine a governor of 
one of these United States denying the presi- 
dency of Mr. Roosevelt, and setting up a con- 
stitution directly opposed to the fundamental 
principles and ideals of the American Repub- 
lic, and yet withal claiming to be a vital part 
thereof, and you have an idea of the imagin- 
ary theory of a minority of the Church of 
England, which, denying the primacy of the 
Pope, and setting up a doctrinal constitution 
directly opposed to the fundamental teachings 
of the universal Church, is still declared to be 
a part of the Catholic Church. 



Catholicity. 



How, indeed, after three hundred years of 
insistence on their Protestantism, and the en- 
actment of penal laws of the severest kind 
against Catholic doctrine and practice, can any 
member of the Established Church of England 
who subscribes to the Thirty nine Articles 
which evidence the essential Protestantism of 
their framers, claim with any show of probability 
the title of Catholic ? The very oath that re- 
mains in the coronation service of the English 
sovereign, "to defend the reformed religion/ ' is 
proof conclusive against any such claim. C . 

In the United States, moreover, the official 
title of the Episcopalians is "the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of America,' 9 despite many 
protests of High- Churchmen in synod aften 
synod (Catholic Truth Society publications). 

When was the. word Catholic first used? 
When Protestant? 

Does not the word Roman localize your Church 
and plainly deny it as the Catholic Church ? Is 
Eot Roman-Catholic a contradiction in terms? 

The Church of Christ has been called Catho- 
lic as early as the beginning of the second cen- 
tury or the end of the first. St. Ignatius 
Martyr in his letter to the people of Smyrna 
(n. 8) says: ''Where the bishop is, there let 
the multitude of believers be ; even as where 
Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." 



1 82 The Question Box. 

It lias ever since been the name of the Church 
founded by Jesus Christ, and although for thou- 
sands of years others have endeavored to usurp 
the name, they have done so despite the pro- 
test of the Catholic Church, and even of the 
great majority of their own members, as, for in- 
stance, the High-Church Episcopalians of our 
day. St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century: 
14 The name itself of the Catholic Church 
keeps nie — a name which, in the midst of so 
many heresies, this Church alone has, not with- 
out cause, so held possession of as that, though 
all heretics would lain have themselves called 
Catholics, yet to the inquiry of any stranger, 
f Where is the Assembly of the Catholic Church 
held ? * no heretic would dare point out his own 
basilica or house " (Contra Ep. Manich. Fund., 
a. 5)- 

The name Protestant is derived from the 
protest of the Lutheran princes of Germany 
against the principles of liberty and toleration 
set forth as a basis of agreement by the Catho- 
lic princes at the Diet of Spires in 1529. These 
articles maintained liberty of worship, and at 
the same time deprived the Protestants of their 
power to plunder and persecute Catholics. To 
this they would not agree. No w r onder, there- 
fore, that the mild Melancthon styled this pro- 
test " a terrible deed" (" Eine Schreckliche 
That") > f° r it cost Germany a civil war, in 



Catholicity. 



183 



wliich she lost over half lier population. And 
yet men say that the Reformation stood for 
liberty. 

The term Roman Catholic is by no means 
a contradiction in terms, as some have erro- 
neously declared, but simply affirms that the 
Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of Rome, 
is the chief Bishop and head of the whole 
Church, and only those under his jurisdic- 
tion are within the one true fold of the 
Saviour. No one is a Catholic who is not a 
Roman Catholic. The terms aire identical and 
interchangeable. The adjective Roman mere- 
ly accentuates the fact of the vital character 
of Christianity, having a local government on 
earth, whose head is the Bishop of Rome. 

Why do Catholics take offence at the words 
Romish or Romanist? 

Because the name of their Church is "The 
Catholic Church,' ' or "The Roman Catholic 
Church/ ' and the words Romish and Romanist 
are used by her enemies in an insulting sense. 
In the same way an Italian would object to 
the word "dago," or a German to the word 
" Dutchman." The standard dictionary says 
of these words: "Romish — Used by Prot- 
estants, and generally indicating disesteem." 
"Romanist — A term used chiefly by those 
whose views are adverse to that Church." 



The Question Box. 



In what does the Greek Church differ from the 
Catholic Church ? Was not the Greek Church the 
first Church? 

In points of doctrine the Greek Church 
denies the primacy and infallibility of the 
Pope, the procession of the Holy Spirit from 
the Father and the Son, the Immaculate Con- 
ception, and allows divorce in case of adul- 
tery. There are also some differences of dis- 
cipline, v. g., the use of leavened bread in the 
Eucharist, the permission of priests to marry. 
The Greek Church, therefore, is guilty of both 
heresy and schism. 

Until the middle of the ninth century the 
Greek Church was in communion with the 
Roman Pontiff. The natural antipathy of the 
Greeks to the L,atins, the many differences in 
ecclesiastical discipline, the close alliance of 
the Papacy and the Empire of the West, and 
Constantinople's jealousy of the power of the 
Roman See, prepared the way for the schism 
of the ninth century. 

It began in a.d. 858, when the Greek Empe- 
ror, Michael the Drunkard, at the instigation of 
his profligate uncle, Bardas, banished Ignatius, 
the patriarch of Constantinople, and intruded 
the layman Photius in his place. Bardas had 
been angered by the patriarch's protest against 
his incest and impiety, and his public refusal 
of Holy Communion ; the Emperor was dis- 



Catholicity. 185 
^ " 

pleased because Ignatius refused to give the 
veil to the unwilling Theodora, the Emperor's 
mother, and her daughters. 

The consecration of Photius was uncanoni- 
cal, because Ignatius still remained the lawful 
patriarch ; and the consecrator, Gregory of 
Syracuse, was at the time under sentence of 
deposition and excommunication. Everything 
possible was done to secure the approbation of 
Pope Nicholas I., as, for example, an embassy 
to Rome, the bribery of the Papal legates sent 
to Constantinople, lying letters, forged decrees, 
and the like. But after a thorough investiga- 
tion, the Pope declared Ignatius the rightful 
patriarch, and deposed Photius as a usurper 
(a.d. 863). 

Photius, however, through the influence of 
the Emperor, retained his power, and in 867 
convoked a synod of his own at Constanti- 
nople, w 7 hich pretended to anathematize and 
depose the Pope. Twenty-two venal bishops 
signed the decrees, and to give some dignity to 
the proceedings Photius forged scores of other 
names. Soon after Photius wrote a letter to the 
Eastern bishops, denouncing the Latins, and 
broaching the heresy regarding the procession 
of the Holy Spirit. 

The Emperor Basil, who succeeded Michael, 
for political reasons deposed Photius and rein- 
stated Iguatius, besides asking the Pope to 



The Question Box. 



annul the decrees of the schismatic synod 
held by Photius. Hadrian II. (867-872) 
finally brought about the union of Greeks and 
Latins at the Eighth General Council of Con- 
stantinople, A.D. 869. 

In 878 Photius again usurped the patri- 
archate, and, although excommunicated in 
turn by Pope John VIII., Marinus I., and 
Hadrian III., he retained his power until the 
accession of the Emperor Leo VI. (SS6), who 
banished him. From the death of Photius 
(891) until 1054 the patriarchs of Constanti- 
nople remained in communion with the Holy 
See, although the relations were never cordial. 

The final break occurred under the Emperor 
Michael Cerularius (a.d. 1043-1059), who, 
after refusing to submit, was solemnly excom- 
municated by the Papal legates sent to Con- 
stantinople by Leo IX. (a.d. 1054). Although 
there have been several attempts at reunion 
(Fourth Laterau Council, a.d. 1215; Lyons, 
1274-12S0; Florence, 1439), the schism has 
continued to this day. Once separated from 
Rome, the Greek Church became, like the 
Church of England, subject to the state, and 
the tool of the imperial power (Alzog, " Church 
History," vol. ii. pp. 449-466). 



Apostolicity. 



IS? 



APOSTOXJCITY. 

Why do you deny us Protestants the claim of 
Apostolicity ? We claim that your Church was a 
corruption of the Apostolic Church and that Luther 
restored it to its primitive purity. 

Is not the true successor of the Apostles that 
preacher of the Gospel who inherits the Apostolic 
spirit, and who works for the good of men as the 
Apostles did? 

Do not we Protestants stand for the true 
Apostolic preaching ? 

The Catholic Church denies that the Prot- 
estant denominations are Apostolic, for they 
are new teachers of new doctrines, who with- 
out the slightest shadow of proof assert that 
the promises of Christ have been of no avail 
to preserve His Church from the corruption of 
error. The Reformers of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, indeed, claimed a special mission to over- 
throw the existing government of the Church 
by denying the universal jurisdiction of the 
Pope ; they also claimed light from above 
to interpret the Bible at will to find out what 
the Saviour taught, independently of the di- 
vine authority He established. Bvt to claim is 
one thing ; to prove a claim another. Insane 
asylums are full of people who claim to be 
Napoleon, Alexander the Great, L,eo XII". , 
and the like. The Reformers produced no 



1 88 



The Question Box. 



evidence in support of their new mission save 
their own private opinion. They were self- 
credited ambassadors without authority, who 
gave no evidence by miracle or holiness of life 
that they were sent of God. "He that enter- 
eth not by the door into the sheepfold, but 
climbeth up another way, the same is a thief 
and a robber " (John x. i ; I. Tim. i. 6, 7 ; 
II. Tim. iii. 1-5). 

The true Apostolic succession demands more 
than mere natural love of the brethren. An 
Apostolic church must have Apostolic doctrine, 
orders, and authority. The Bible gives us 
unmistakable evidence of a Church built on 
the Apostles, and continuing one and the same 
for ever without even the possibility of failure* 

Christ Himself chose the twelve Apostles, 
and made them, with Peter as their head 
(Matt. xvi. 18; I^uke xxii. 31-32; John xxi. 
15-17), the foundation of His Church. "You 
have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you M 
(John xv. 16; Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark iii. 13, 
14; I^uke vi. 13-16; John vi* 71; Eph. ii. 
19, 20). 

He gives to the Apostles a divine commis- 
sion to preach His doctrine and pardon sin in 
His name and with His authority for all times 
and for all places, guaranteeing their faith- 
fulness by the perpetual guidance of Himself 
and the Holy Spirit (Matt, xxviii. 18-20: Matt. 



Apostolicity. 



xviii. 17 ; Mark xvi. 15, 16 ; Luke x. 16 ; John 
xx. 21-23; John xiv. 26; John xvi. 13). 

The Apostles continually claim to be divine- 
ly commissioned ministers and ambassadors of 
God (Rom. i. 5 ; x. 14, 15 ; I. Cor. iv. 1 ; I. 
Cor. xii. 28 ; II. Cor. ii. 17 ; v. 19, 20 ; vi. 4 ; 
I. Thess. ii. 3, 4, 13 ; Eph. iv. 11, 12; Col. i. 
25; Heb. v. 4; I. Tim. ii. 7; I. John iv. 6). 
They are most strong in their denunciation of 
those who dared teach a new gospel, because 
they realized it must needs be man-made, and 
therefore false (Gal. i. 8 ; Heb. xiii. 9). They 
know nothing of a Church that will become 
corrupt, for they had heard Christ's words 
which speak clearly of a perpetual Church 
(Matt, xxviii. 20; John xiv. 16). Consequent- 
ly we find them ordaining successors to carry 
on their work of preaching and pardoning, 
whom they commanded to hold fast to every 
doctrine of the gospel, and in turn transmit 
it pure and undefiled to faithful and cap- 
able men (Acts xiv. 22; II. Tim. ii. 2; i. 6; 
Tit. i. 5). It is plain, therefore, to one who 
studies these texts of Scripture carefully, that 
the whole work of Christ Jesus as Teacher, 
Ruler, and Sanctifier of men is lo be carried 
on for ever by the Apostolic body, and those 
divinely associated to that Apostolic body by 
the fact of oiders received and jurisdiction 
given. If, for example, a body of twelve men 



190 



The Question Box. 



receive from the owner of a large farm of five 
thousand acres the contract to gather in his 
entire harvest, they receive also as a matter of 
fact the right to hire as many others as are 
necessary in order to fulfil their contract. But 
no outsider can rightly cut a swathe or bind a 
single sheaf of that harvest, unless he receive 
authority so to do from one of the twelve, or 
some sub-contractor who acts in their name 
and with their authority, If he attempt it he 
will be treated as a trespasser. 

So with the Lord of the harvest, Christ 
Jesus (Luke x. 1-12) . He has given over the 
harvest of all nations to twelve men (Matt, 
xxviii. 18-20; Mark xvi. 15, 16), and they, to 
carry out that divine commission, must neces- 
sarily choose others to carry on the work after 
their death. So we find them, immediately 
after the death of Judas, selecting Matthias in 
his place (Acts i. 26) . Only those appointed 
by the Apostles, or their associates, have any 
right to labor in the harvest of souls. " He 
that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, 
but climbeth up another way, the same is a 
thJ?f and a robber' 9 (John x. 1). 
r As for the Reformation dogmas of Protest* 
antism being identical with the early preach* 
ing of the gospel, many Protestants themselves 
to-day repudiate the teaching of the Reformers 
entirely Much of the modern unbelief comes 



Apostolicity. 



191 



of the realization of the fact, that if the Re- 
formers had a right to give the world a new 
Christianity, others also have the same right 
to call themselves Christians while stripping 
Christianity of all its supernatural character. 
A study of the Fathers, or of the catacomb 
inscriptions, will prove every Catholic doc- 
trine and practice, and completely refute the 
Protestant denial of the visible Church, the 
apostolic ministry, the efficacy of the sacra- 
ments, the true notion of faith and good works, 
etc. "So much must the Protestant grant," 
writes Cardinal Newman, " that if such a sys- 
tem as he would now introduce ever existed 
in earlier times, it has been clean swept away 
as if by a deluge^suddenly, silently, and with- 
out memorial ; by a deluge coming in a night, 
and utterly soaking, rotting, tearing up, and 
hurrying off every vestige of what is found in 
the Church before cock-crowing " ("Histori- 
cal Sketches," vol. i. p. 418). 

What right has your Roman branch of the 
Universal Church to lord it over the Greek and 
Anglican branches ? 

We ask in reply : What is the Church %J 
England ? What are its doctrines ? What its 
history? What its witness to-day ? What its 
authority ? And we find three parties among 
Episcopalians, all claiming to represent her 



192 The Question Box. 



truly. The High-Church party with its Church 
idea minus the Pope ; the Low-Church party 
Protestant of the Protestants, with the Bible 
only, and horrified at the thought of any move- 
ment Romeward ; the Broad- Church party, 
repudiating both the prayer-book and the 
Thirty-nine Articles, and standing for liberal, 
rationalistic Christianity with the Unitarian 
and the Universalist. Which is the Church 
of England ? 

The High-Church party evolved the Branch 
theory — i.e. y the Roman, Greek, and Anglican 
branches form one universal Church ; but it is 
a theory unknown till the last century, and 
therefore over eighteen centuries too late. 

We can readily understand what is meant 
by the Roman Catholic Church with its perfect 
unity of Apostolic doctrine, of episcopal gov- 
ernment under one infallible head, the Pope, 
who can teach authoritatively and bear in- 
fallible witness to the doctrines of Christ. We 
can understand what is meant by the Church 
of England as an organization, or corporate 
body, dependent upon the state in its origin 
and continuance. But we can form no con- 
ception of this imaginary three-branch church 
of whose existence nine-tenths of its members 
are ignorant. We cannot grasp the notion of 
a union of men holding doctrines and prin- 
ciples fundamentally opposed despite theii 



A postolicity. 1 93 

earnest protest. For all Catholics, Greeks, and 
Protestants, with the majority of Episcopalians 
themselves, deny the existence of any such body. 

If a union were possible between churches 
that affirm and deny the most essential doc- 
trines of Christianity, it would follow that the 
Church had ceased entirely to perform her 
chief office as the infallible teacher, witness, 
and guardian of Christ's revelation ; the abid- 
ing presence of Christ (Matt xxviii. 20) and 
the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 16, 17, 26) have 
failed to keep her pure from the taint of false 
doctrine, and the gates of hell have prevailed, 
contrary to Christ's promise (Matt. xvi. 18). 

The branch theory, therefore, gives us a 
church in name only. What indeed is a 
church that cannot speak authoritatively and 
declare the true doctrine of the Saviour ? What 
is a church divided against itself, teaching 
one thing in London, another in St. Peters- 
burg, and another in Rome. " Every city or 
house divided against itself shall not stand' ' 
(Matt. xii. 25). 

The Catholic Church does indeed regard the 
Greeks and Anglicans as dead branches, cut 
off from the centre of unity ; national churches 
only, whose fulness of ecclesiastical power rests 
in the person of the King or the Czar. She 
does not lord it over tLem, but rather regrets 
their heresy and schism, and prays earnestly 



194 The Question Box. 



for their return to the faith of their forefathers. 
(Bagshawe, "The Church"; Maclyaughlin, 
"The Divine Plan of the Church/') 

We Anglicans claim Apostolic succession from 
the present bishops back to the Apostle Paul, 
who first brought Christianity to Britain. Why, 
then, do you dispute our claim ? 

Because there is not the slightest evidence 
for the claim. As for St. Paul's preaching in 
Britain, no proof whatsoever is forthcoming. 
We deny the claim of Apostolic succession 
made by some members of the Church of Eng- 
land and the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
America, because, in the first place, we con- 
sider their priests and bishops to be mere lay- 
men for lack of valid orders. But even grant- 
ing that their orders were valid, the fact of 
their being cut off from the centre of unity, 
the See of Rome, which has ever been the 
test and guarantee of the true Apostolic suc- 
cession, is proof positrce against them. " How 
shall they preach unless they be sent?" we 
ask with St. Paul (Rom. x. 15). Whence 
came the mission of the Anglican bishops to 
teach? Not from the Pope, whom they re- 
pudiated ; not from the Catholic bishops, who 
in Elizabeth's time denounced them as spuri- 
ous ; not from the crown, for it could not give 
what it did not itself possess. 



Apostolicity. 



*95 



No, the Church of England is a modern 
church dating from the decree of Parliament 
that made Henry VIII. the head of the church 
in spirituals as well as temporals, and all at- 
tempts to prove it the same church in govern- 
ment, doctrine, and ritual with the Church of 
the Apostles in England before the Reformation 
provoke a smile with all outsiders, and are 
pronounced futile by the majority of their own 
communion. 

Why do you class us Episcopalians with other 
Protestant denominations when we resemble your 
Church so closely in many respects ? 

Because the Church of England and its 
sister in this country, the Protestant Episcopal 
Church of America, have for their basic prin- 
ciple the private judgment of the individual, 
and not the voice of the living, infallible 
Church. At the outset of the Tractarian 
movement indeed, about seventy years ago, 
some notion existed that a bishop as the suc- 
cessor of the Apostles had a right to teach 
authoritatively ; but the constant contests be- 
tween ministers and bishops with different 
views concerning doctrine and practice have 
finally destroyed all notion of authority what- 
soever. And so in our day an Episcopalian 
bishop may ordain a man against the indig- 
nant protests of the clergymen of his diocese, 



196 



The Question Box. 



while, on the other hand, a ritualistic minister 
may defiantly hold doctrines his bishop con- 
siders false, or go through with a so-called 
"mass" that his bishop regards as idolatrous. 
And worse still, a High-Church bishop may be 
forced to tolerate within his diocese men whose 
views are so broad that they deny with im- 
punity the dogmas of the Trinity and the 
Divinity of Christ. 

The mere outward semblance, therefore, of 
ritual, or the mere holding of dogmas as 
matters of opinion, does not constitute iden- 
tity w T ith the Catholic Church; although, un- 
doubted^, the hand of God is thus visible 
directing many sincere souls to consider the 
one great question : Is there on earth a divine, 
infallible teacher which voices authoritatively 
all the gospel of the Saviour? 



THE CHARGE OF INTOLERANCE. 
Do you believe that sincere Protestants will be 
damned ? 

Where do good Protestants go after death ? 
. Does the Roman Church claim the monopoly of 
salvation ? 

Do you believe that all Catholics go to heaven, 
and all Protestants to hell ? 

Do you honestly think all pagans are doomed 
to eternal hell fire ? 



The Charge of Intolerance, 



197 



Does not your catechism teach that " outside 
of the Church there is no salvation" ? Is this 
not an intolerable doctrine ? 

The Catholic Church teaches that no one 
goes to hell, unless he has freely and de- 
liberately turned his back on God, and died 
guilty of mortal sin. The axiom, "Outside 
of the Church there is no salvation," is a 
technical expression, to be understood only in 
the sense that Catholic theologians have ever 
put upon it. A non-Catholic once said to me : 

You cannot explain that away, for the words 
are too plain. They admit of but one mean- 
ing, viz.: the wholesale damnation of all that 
are not members of your Church. V And yet, 
on further questioning, he admitted that a con- 
stitutional lawyer ought to be the authority 
on the meaning of a clause in the Constitution 
rather than an ignorant voter who could not 
explain why he was a Republican rather than 
a Democrat. According to his argument, the 
axiom of English law, "The king can do no 
wrong/ ' would imply that King Edward VII. 
was confirmed in grace, rather than the fact of 
his not being amenable to any court in Eng- 
land. 

> The Catholic Church has always believed 
that men outside of her fold might live in 
error, and still be saved ; that men outside 
of her visible organization through invincible 



The Question Box. 



ignorance might still be in the soul of the 
Church, by a true spiritual communion of 
faith and charity ; that every anathema or con- 
demnation by the Church relates to error it- 
self or false principles contrary to the gospel 
of Jesus Christ, and does not concern the in- 
terior guilt of men or women in error ; that no 
Catholic has a right to judge the guilt of any 
individual. 

Pius IX., writing on this matter, says: 
' Far be it from us to dare set bounds to the 
boundless mercy of God ; far be it from us to 
desire to search into the depths of the hidden 
counsels and judgments of God, an abyss that 
the mind of man cannot explore. . . . We 
must held as of faith, that out of the Apostolic 
Roman Church there is no salvation ; that 
she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever 
is not in her perishes in the deluge ; we must 
also, on the other hand, recognize with cer- 
tainty that those who are in invincible igno- 
rance of the true religion are not guilty for 
this in the eye of the Lord. And who will 
presume to mark out the limits of this igno- 
rance according to the character and diversity 
of peoples, countries, minds, and the rest?" 
(Allocution, Dec. 9, 1854). And again he 
writes : ' ' It is known to us and to you that 
those who are in invincible ignorance of our 
most holy religion, but who observe carefully 



The Charge of Intolerance. 199 



the natural law and the precepts graven by 
God upon the hearts of all men, and who be- 
ing disposed to obey God lead an honest and 
upright life, may, aided by the light of divine 
grace, attain to eternal life ; for God, who see$ 
clearly, searches and knows the heart, the dis- 
position, the thoughts and intentions of each, 
in his supreme mercy and goodness by no 
means permits that any one suffer eternal pun- 
ishment who has not of his own free will fallen 
into sin" (Encyclical to the Italian Bishops, 
August 10, 1863). 

We see, therefore, that the plain teaching of 
the Catholic Church is ' ' He who is outside the 
one visible Church of Christ by his own fault 
cannot be saved.' ' Thus, a man convinced 
that the Catholic Church is the one King- 
dom of God established on earth for the sal- 
vation of men, and yet refusing to belong to 
her communion because ii means loss of social 
or political position, of money, of friends, 
rebels wilfully against his conscience, gravely 
insults Christ, and is guilty of grievous sin. 
Again, a man who gravely doubts about his 
own belief and refuses to study the Catholic 
claim, sins against the light. 

How absurd to think that we believe all 
Catholics are to be saved by the very fact of 
their being Catholics, when the Council of 
Trent teaches expressly against Luther that no 



200 



The Question Box. 



one can ever be absolutely certain of salvation 
(Sess. vi., de Just., can. 15). 

With regard to pagans, it is the teaching 
of the Church that God sincerely wills all men 
to be saved, and that He gives sufficient grace 
to all men, pagan or Christian, for salvation. 
It follows, therefore, logically, no pagan is lost 
except by his own fault. It is an old axiom of 
the schools, 14 God will not refuse His grace to 
any man that does the best he can M (what 
lies in his power) (Du Blanchy, ' 1 Extra 
Ecclesiam non est salus " ; Hergenrothet, 
" Church and State, " vol. ii. xvii. par. 3). 

Intelligent non-Catholics recognize clearly 
the true sense of this formula, and the bound- 
less charity and hatred of intolerance that 
marks the spirit of the Catholic Church. Mai- 
lock writes : " There is no point, probably, con- 
nected with this question, about which the 
general world is so misinformed and ignorant 
as the sober but boundless charity of what is 
•ailed the anathematizing Church. So little 
indeed is this charity understood generally, 
that to assert it seems a startling paradox. 
. . . It is the simple statement of a fact. 
Never was there a religious body, except the 
Roman, that laid the intense stress she does on 
all her dogmatic teachings, and had yet the 
justice that comes of sympathy for those that 
cannot receive them. . , . The holy and 



The Charge of Intolerance. 20 1 

humble men of heart who do not know her, 
or w r ho in good faith reject her, she commits 
with confidence to God's uncovenanted mer- 
cies ; and these she knows are infinite. . . . 
Her anathemas are on none but those who re- 
ject her with their eyes open, by tampering 
wdth a conviction that she really is the truth. 
These are condemned, not for not seeing that 
the teacher is true, but because, having really 
seen this, they continue to close their eyes ta 
it. They will not obey when they know they 
ought to obey " ("Is Life Worth Living? " ch. 
xi. 283-285). A Catholic could not state the 
doctrine more clearly. 

If I can be saved outside the Catholic Church, 
what is the use of my joining it ? 

One might as well ask : If I can swim 
across the Hudson River, why should I pay 
three cents to ride in a ferry-boat? 

Jesus Christ was a divine teacher, who com- 
manded us to believe all His teaching under 
penalty of damnation, and a divine organizer 
who commanded us to join His society, the 
Catholic Church. ' ' He that believeth not shall 
be condemned ' • (Mark xvi. 16); "Teaching 
all things " (Matt, xxviii. 20) ; "If he will not 
hear the Church, let him be to thee as the 
heathen or publican" (Matt, xviii. 17). The 
Catholic Church alone preaches the entire gos- 



202 



The Question Box. 



pel, and in her inner and outer life is the 
ordinary way of salvation God gave to men. 
As a non- Catholic, therefore, you are, even 
if inculpably outside the Church, deprived 
of much of God's revelation, and many of 
His helps for salvation; v. g. y Penance, the 
Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass. 

Again, if God's grace urge you to join His 
true Church, and j^ou hesitate about studying 
her claims because you dread the opposition 
of relatives and friends, the anxiety and worry 
of protracted study, the loss of political or 
social position, the burden of new obligations 
— like obligatory Sunday Mass or confession — 
there is no possibility of your salvation, be- 
cause you are false to conscience. How many 
a doubting soul, utterly unable to swear on 
the Gospel that their sect is the one true 
Church of Christ, and unwilling to die for 
that belief, yet refuses to do away with his 
doubts by study and prayer. We cannot re- 
main indifferent to our eternal welfare without 
forfeiting the friendship of God. 

Would you as a Catholic priest like to have 
the members of your Church take in a series of 
lectures by a Protestant on Protestant doctrines, 
where the lecturer would insist that his Church 
is the only true one? 

If you are broad-minded and liberal enough to 



The Charge of Intolerance. 203 

invite us Protestants to come to your services, 
why in your bigotry and intolerance deny Catho- 
lics the liberty to come to ours? 

For what reason does a priest forbid Catholics 
to attend non-Catholic churches ? Should not an 
honest person study both sides ? 

Protestants are invited by us to listen to the 
explanation of Catholic doctrine and the an- 
swers to their difficulties, because we know 
that they can attend without violating any 
principle of their Protestantism, which is a re- 
ligion of fallible, private opinion. Disclaim- 
ing infallibility, a logical Protestant must 
necessarily be in the attitude of a seeker after 
truth. He usually says "that one church is 
as good as another 1 ' because he lacks the 
divine witness to the unique Christianity 
Jesus founded. He is often a doubter, who 
questions at times whether or not the old his- 
torical Church may be right. Was the Refor- 
mation a step towards Christ or in the direc- 
tion of infidelity and indifferentism ? Is the 
Bible its own witness? Will faith alone save a 
man ? Are those stories about the Church of 
Rome true or false ? Is this her real teach- 
ing or a parody thereof ? Are these her moral 
principles, or has she repudiated them as 
calumnies of her enemies? Is confession of 
sin an institution of Christ? Does the Sav- 
iour really dwell with His peopled With 



204 



The Question Box, 



thousands who have not yet denied the Christ 
there is an eagerness to know the message 
of the Catholic Church, as the large attend- 
ance at the lectures to non- Catholics in every 
part of our country abundantly proves. 

On the other hand, the Catholic, resting not 
on the varying, contradictory human and falli- 
ble views of men, but on the uniform, certain, 
divine, infallible witness of Christ's Church, 
is possessed of an absolute divine certainty 
that his Church alone has the true religion 
Jesus Christ gave the w r orld. 

A logical Protestant must ever be in the 
state of chronic doubt ; a Catholic never has 
the slightest doubt. 

A logical Protestant is ever a seeker after 
truth ; a Catholic has found it, and therefore 
is under no necessity of further search. 

Catholics, therefore, could not without vio- 
lating the essential principles of Christianity 
take part in religious services they know to be 
false, or consider doctrines they know on 
divine authority to be contrary to the gospel 
of Christ. 

St. Paul told the early Christians that it 
was sinful to participate in the sacrifices of 
paganism (I. Cor. x. 21); the same Apos* 
tolic Church forbids to-day co-operation in any 
erroneous religion as displeasing to the God of 
truth. 



The Charge of Intolerance. 



205 



Practical^, the Catholic Church, having a 
uniform faith, can satisfactorily explain her 
teaching to the world ; but Protestantism, di- 
vided hopelessly, would find it impossible to 
explain what she protests against. Imagine, 
for instance, the Episcopal Church attempt- 
ing to give a series of lectures explanatory 
of her teachings, and the three lecturers 
are severally High-Church, Low-Church, and 
Broad. Each man would deny in turn what 
the other held was the gospel of Christ. 

It is not a question of liberality or broad- 
mindedness, for Catholics maintain that no 
man can without sin deny the doctrines 
of the Saviour, To countenance the preach- 
ing of a false gospel is practical denial of 
the Christ; to take part in a false worship is 
to sinfully declare all worship equally pleasing 
to God. True, our spirit is one of kindliness 
to all and hatred toward none, and utterly de- 
void of that bigotry w T hich implies an irra- 
tional belief in a doctrine one cannot prove, 
together with the hatred of all others who be- 
lieve differently. Catholics hate none who pro- 
fess a false religion, but rather compassionate 
them and pray for them. 

But one's good will is never shown by the 
sacrifice of principle ; one's kindliness is never 
manifested by declaring that essential differ- 
ences do not exist. We cannot be "liberal" 



206 



The Question Box. 



with the doctrine of the Saviour, for it is 
God's truth. You would not call the man 
liberal who was lavishly spending his employ- 
er's money. 

As for studying both sides, a Protestant is 
bound to do so ; for, like the scientist in 
face of an unproved hypothesis, he cannot be 
infallibly sure that his theory is right. A 
Catholic has no other need to study than the 
scientist with proved and tested facts is obliged 
to go over the ground of his predecessors. 
His faith rests on God's authority, not on 
man's, and therefore he cannot be deceived. 

Why do you forbid Catholics to attend Spiritis- 
tic seances ? 

Can a Catholic be a medium? 

Why is the Catholic Church opposed to Spirit- 
ism ? 

A short summary of the facts and teaching 
of Spiritism will at once explain the attitude 
of the Catholic Church. Spiritism, or the sys- 
tematic communication with spirits that claim 
to be departed souls, is merely a new form 
of pagan necromancy, anathematized by the 
law of Moses (Kxod. xxii. 18; L,ev. xix. 26 ; 
Deut. xviii. 10; I. Kings xxviii. 9). In 
its modern dress, it dates from the spirit reve- 
lations of the Fox family at Hydesville, New 
York, in 1.848. Within a few years; Spirit- 



The Charge of Intolerance. 20J' 



ism counted some ten million adherents in 
this country alone. The fact of its rapid prog- 
ress showed the evident weakening in faith of 
the various Protestant denominations that fed 
it. Its doctrines, learned from spirit mani- 
festations, are given us in detail by lead- 
ing spiritists like Wallace, Kardec (Rivail), 
Crookes, Home, Tuttle, and others. 

It claims to be a religion, although it gives 
no worship to God, and substitutes in His 
stead a great crowd of spirits of every grade 
of intellect and morality. Its external wor- 
ship is the feverish excitement of the uncanny 
seance, and its priests chiefly women " medi- 
ums, " who, under stress of hypnotic influence 
or diabolic possession, bring about many 
strange phenomena, such as table-rapping, 
the writing of the planchette, oral and writ- 
ten spirit communications, the reading of 
secret thoughts, the diagnosis of. diseases, 
the speaking of unknown tongues, the prophe- 
sying of future events, the describing distant 
happenings. 

Undoubtedly some of the so-called facts of 
Spiritism may be ascribed to fraud, for time 
and time again mediums have figured in the 
police courts ; others can be explained by mere 
natural causes, such as hypnotic influence, or 
some hitherto unexplored natural force in man 
(Dr. J. Wieser^ S.J., of Innsbruck, "Spiritism 



208 



The Question Box. 



and Christianity"). But over and above this 
there are facts which seem to have overwhelm- 
ing testimony in their favor, and which point to 
diabolic agency. 

Spiritism pretends to be the final perfection 
of Christianity, although it denies its every 
dogma, and declares that Jesus Christ is not 
the Son of God, but merely one of the high- 
est spirits. 

Its history has been marked with the great- 
est immorality, as the Mountain Cave, the 
Kiantone Movement, the Sacred Order of 
Unionists, and the Order of the Patriarchs 
amply prove, Some have argued that this wag 
merely an abuse, but we say that Spiritism is 
essentially anti- moral. It has no worship of 
God, and no eternal sanction of reward and 
punishment to safeguard morality. It declares 
that human existence is merely a time of trial 
for spirits until they reach the final perfec- 
tion which is the destiny of all. Surely such a 
teaching is not calculated to curb the evil 
passions of men's hearts. 

Rightly, then, does the Church warn her 
children against this irreligious and immoral 
superstition, which often seems to evidence 
the power of Satan ; and forbid them not only 
to become mediums, but even to attend the 
Spiritistic seances. (" Is Spiritism a Develops 
ment of Christianity ? " Amer. Cath. Quarts 



The Charge of Intolerance. 209 



vol. viii. p. 153 ; " Modern Spiritism versus 
Christianity," ibid., vol. vii. p. 208.) 

In what way does Christian Science conflict 
with the teachings of the Catholic Church ? 

Can a Catholic be treated by Christian Scien- 
tists merely for health, provided he or she do 
not believe in their teachings ? 

Can you in the face of such overwhelming evi- 
dence deny the many cures wrought by Chris- 
tian Scientists ? 

The Catholic Church regards Christian 
Science, with its denial of a personal God 
distinct from the universe, the divinity of 
Jesus Christ, and every Christian dogma, as an 
essentially pagan system. Discovered in 1866 
by Mrs. Eddy, of Boston, it was given to the 
world in 1875 as "the final revelation of the 
absolute principle of scientific being and of 
healing," in her work " Science and Health, 
with Key to the Scriptures ' ' (Joseph Arm- 
strong, Boston, ed. 1901). 

Christian Science is a very striking example 
of that inevitable tendency toward unbelief 
that characterizes the Protestant principle of 
private interpretation ; for while pretending, 
with many another false prophet (Mark xiii. 
22), that the Bible is her " sole teacher, guide, 
and text-book" (pp. viii. 4, 20), Mrs. Eddy 
perverts its meaning at every step ; and while 



2 id The Question Box. 

quoting its words she gives them, without 
any warrant whatsoever, a meaning which will 
agree with her irrational mingling of Ideal- 
ism, Manicheism, and Pantheism. The Divin- 
ity of Christ is absolutely denied, and His 
divine gospel becomes a mere system of meta- 
physical healing (pp. 32, 346, 363, 478, 574, 
etc.) After reading Mrs. Eddy's book from 
cover to cover, one wonders how any rational 
man or woman could ever believe without the 
shadow of proof in a pretended prophet, claim- 
ing absolute obedience, who cures by the mere 
reading of a book, or by absent treatment, 
functional and organic diseases (pp. 135, 71, 
443, 43). Much of the book is unintelligible; 
and therefore its author tells us that we may not 
hope to fathom its meaning. Such phrases as 
these are indeed incomprehensible : ' ' There is 
no physical science. Matter is nothing but mor- 
tal belief. Man is the compound idea of God. 
Gender is a quality, a characteristic of mind, 
not matter. Electricity is not a vital fluid, 
but the least material form ct illusive con- 
sciousness—a material mindlessness ' ' (pp. 21, 
19, 471, etc.) r 1 

Here are a few specimens of the new logic: 
"If drugs are part of God's creation, then 
drugs cannot be poisonous. If we live after 
death and are immortal, we must have lived 
before birth. If soul sinned, it would be 



Tlie Charge of Intolerance. 211 



mortal. You say a boil is painful ; but that 
is impossible, for matter without mind is not 
painful" (pp. 50, 427, 464, 47)- 

Mrs. Eddy refuses to be called a pantheist, 
but her own words convict her, if words mean 
anything: 1 1 There can be but one Mind, be- 
cause there is but one God. In one sense 
God is identical w T ith nature. Soul or spirit 
signifies deity and nothing else. There is no 
finite soul or spirit. There is but one mind 
or intelligence. God, Spirit, being all, noth- 
ing is matter. Science reveals nothing in spirit 
out of which to create matter. All is mind, 
and mind is God. Soul is God, unchange- 
able, eternal" (pp. 465, 13, 462, 112, 7, 174). 

She holds the old Manichean doctrine that 
the material world is evil, and that therefore 
God is not its Creator : ' ' To regard God as the 
creator of matter is not only to make Him re- 
sponsible for all disasters, physical and moral, 
but to announce Him as their source " (pp. 

13: cj* 546, 174, 8). 

She renders religion impossible by denying 
a personal God distinct from the universe, the 
txistence of soul in body, free will, sin, etc.: 
4 4 The great mistake of mortals is to suppose 
that man is both matter and spirit. Soul or 
spirit signifies deity and nothing else. Will- 
power is but an illusion of belief — the delusion 
of sin ,; ^(pp. 112, 462, 486, 100, 468). J 



212 The Question Box, 

She denies every fundamental - dogma of 
Christianity, v.g*> the Trinity, the divinity of 
Jesus Christ, the fact of original and actual sin^ 
the redemption, the existence of a divine so- 
ciety to preach the gospel, the sacramental 
system, the necessity of faith, grace, prayer, 
fasting, the resurrection of the body, the last 
judgment, angels, devils, eternal punishment. 

''The theory of three persons in one God, 
i.e., a personal Trinity, or tri-unity, suggests 
heathen gods. Jesus was the highest human 
concept of a perfect man. He was not divine, 
but a mere healer of the sick ; the legend of 
the serpent, a myth, a dream narrative ; sin is 
a delusion. That God's wrath should be visited 
upon His beloved Sou is divinely unnatural. 
Such a theory is man-made. Christianity as 
Jesus taught it was not a creed. The true 
science of God and man is no more super- 
natural than is the science of numbers. Our 
Lord's first article of faith was healing. Our 
Baptism is a purification from all error. Our 
Eucharist is a spiritual communion w 7 ith the 
one God. Faith is the acceptance of Christian 
Science. Th^ 4 new man ' of Scripture is a 
Christian Scientist. Audible prayer can nevet 
do the w r orks of divine understanding ; prayer 
is unnecessary, as the A has already decreed 
what is good for us. Fasting is a senseless 
belief; the belief that material bodies return 



The Charge of Intolerance. 2 1 3 



to dust hereafter to rise up spiritual bodies is 
incorrect. No final judgment awaits mortals. 
Angels are . . . not messengers but mes- 
sages of the true idea of divinity. Evil or 
devil is not mind, is not truth, but error. Hell 
is mortal belief, error, remorse, hatred' ' (pp. 
152, 508, 478, 32, 523, 519, 154, 100, 416, 468, 
238, 3^7> 29, 492, 467, 5, 39, 340, 484, 196, 310, 
187, 195, 465, etc.) 

Her denial of the evidence of the senses, the 
reality of matter, the facts gained by medical 
science and surgery, the utter lack of coherency 
and system in her many contradictory state- 
ments prove her system to be as unscientific 
as it is irreligious arid anti-Christian. " What 
we term the five physical senses are simply be- 
liefs of mortal mind. When an accident hap- 
pens . . . declare you are not hurt, and 
you will find the ensuing good effects to be in 
exact proportion to your disbelief in physics 
and 3'our fidelity to God. The corporeal senses 
are the only sources of evil and error. Chris- 
tian Science explains all cause and effect as 
mental not physical. There is no physical 
science. One disease is no more real than an- 
other. All disease is cured by mind. Belief is 
all that ever enables a drug to cure mortal ail- 
ments. What is termed disease does not exist. 
Science can heal the sick who are absent from 
their healer. Where there are fewer doctors 



214 



The Question Box. 



and less thought is given to sanitary subjects_ 
there will be better constitutions and less dis- 
ease" (pp. 170, 365, 485, 7, 21, 69, 67, 81, 71). 

How account for the growth of Christian 
Science? Its followers are recruited for the 
most part from the ranks of those indifferentist 
or unbelieving Protestants who, ignorant of the 
first principles of Christianity, are the ready 
victims of any new teaching. Again, this 
new phase of modern unbelief allows the un- 
thinking mind to call itself Christian, wb l '3e at 
the same time it does not demand the accept- 
ance of the doctrines or moral principles the 
Saviour taught. Furthermore, like errors of 
other times, it appeals to the suffering mul- 
titude who long for some panacea of disease* 
and care little for the method of the cure. 
Witness in our country the following gained by 
such evident impostors as Dowie, Schlatter, 
and the millions opent annually in the fees of 
quacks. The rinancial side of the movement 
is another factor in its growth, for it provides 
an easy wa} r of practising medicine. 

How account for its so-called cures ? I recall 
two cures of the Christian Science kind — one 
of a pretended operation in a large city hospital, 
which completely cured a woman of an internal 
(imaginary) disease of many months standing ; 
another of a woman bedridden for years, who 
during the panic induced by a fire in her house 



I 



The Charge of Iiztolerance. 215 



recovered the use of her limbs by the mere ex- 
ercise of will-power long dormant. So, fre- 
quently physicians have treated their wealthy 
hypochondriac patients on a harmless diet of 
bread-pills and water, and daily discussed with- 
out a smile the marked progress caused by their 
wonderful prescription, 

The many cures, especially in the nervous 
diseases of women, wrought abroad in our gene- 
ration by hypnotic suggestion at the hands of 
the scientific graduates of the schools of Nancy 
and Paris, have made us realize more than ever 
before the influence of the mind and the imagi- 
nation over bodily disease (I^e Hypnotism Franc- 
Coconnier). Christian Science has adopted this 
child of modern therapeutics, and dressing it 
up in the clothes of unchristian and unscientific 
principles, endeavors by dint of vigorous and 
oracular assertion to win for it the reverence 
of its credulous following. We can safely chal- 
lenge any of these modern cu^sts to bring for- 
ward one authentic ca^e — rVoved by affidavits 
of reputable Catholic, >oteotant, Jewish, and 
infidel physicians— in rliich the mind of a meta- 
physical healer has set a broken arm or leg. heal- 
ed a cancer or a tumor, or effected the cure of 
any organic disease. As for healing the deaf, the 
dumb, the blind, the lame, lepers — only Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, and the saints of the old 
law and the new, have worked such miracles. 



216 



The Question Box. 



Indeed, we deem those who suffer the sick 
under their care to die for the want of proper 
medical attendance to be guilty of criminal 
neglect, and if in their ignorance and supersti- 
tion they do not realize their sin, the law of the 
state should, in the interests of society, see to 
it that those dependent on such fanatics be pub- 
licly provided for, just as the Society for the 
Prevention of Cruelty looks after children mal- 
treated by their parents. 

No Catholic is warranted in having recourse 
to Christian Science healers for the cure of 
bodily disease, because it is grievous sin to en- 
courage charlatanism or superstition in any 
form ; and even if a real cure were certain, 
Catholics know they cannot deny Jesus Christ 
or His divine teachings for any temporal bene- 
fit whatsoever. It is not allowed to do evil that 
good may come. 

The Catholic Church teaches clearly the 
efficacy of prayer, but forbids her children to 
neglect the ordinary means at their disposal for 
the cure of disease, doctor's skill and medi- 
cines, as irrational and sinful. Miracles are 
exceptional things, and not the ordinary law 
of God's providence. She quotes the words of 
Holy Writ: 4 'Honor the physician for the 
need thou hast of him ; for the Most High hath 
created him. . . . The skill of the physi- 
cian shall lift up his head, and in the sight of 



The Charge of Intolerance. 2 1 7 



great men he shall be praised. The Most High 
hath created medicines out of the earth, and a 
wise man will not abhor them. . . . My 
son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but 
pray to the Lord, and He shall heal thee" 
(Ecclus. xxxviii. 1-10). 

She declares infallibly that Jesus Christ came 
to teach men the truth of God and to save them 
from sin, and that He sent His apostles to 
preach and pardon in His Name until the end 
of the world. Christian Science, which denies 
His divinity and His gospel, is to her a 
superstition against the first commandment of 
God. 

What is your opinion of theosophy? 

Theosophy is a modern pantheistic illusion 
borrowed from the East, and popularized for 
the West, chiefly by Madame Blavatsky and 
Colonel Olcott. It regards the universe as a 
manifestation of the Great Eternal Reality, 
the human soul as an emanation thereof. Man 
is composed of seven parts, four of which are 
perishable (personality) — the physical body, the 
principle of life, the astral or invisible body, 
and the animal soul,— and three eternaJ (indi- 
viduality) — the Great Reality, the spiritual 
soul, and the understanding. 

At death, however, the animal soul may still 
remain in a disembodied state, and entering 



218 



The Question Box. 



into other persons act as a medium of com- 
munication. A Mali at ma — that is, one who has 
become perfectly independent of the faculties 
of sense — can ptoject his astral body to any dis- 
tance, and communicate through the astral 
senses to the members of the mystic brother- 
hood, detect things invisible to ordinary eyes, 
read the thoughts of absent persons, etc. The 
world is governed by an inexorable fatality or 
law of retribution, called Karma. Good is 
necessarily rewarded, evil necessarily punished. 
Forgiveness of sin is impossible. Man, if 
wicked, sinks lower and lower, until he reaches 
the goal of complete annihilation ; if good, he 
is by successive reincarnations finally absorbed 
into the one Eternal Reality (Nirvana), losing 
his personality, although, strangely enough, 
not his individuality. 

This teaching is a queer mixture of Brahmin 
and Buddhist pantheism and atheism, and con- 
tradicts the elemental notions of Christianity by 
its denial of a personal God, of the possibility 
of forgiveness of sin, of the fact of probation in 
this life, of future eternal reward and punish- 
ment, of the individually responsible sinner. 
Its wonders are to be ascribed either to fraud, 
self-delusion, or to diabolical agencies. 

Does not your Church claim the right to im- 
prison, torture, and kill heretics? 



The Charge of Intolerance. 219 



Does not the Catholic Church sanction perse- 
cution ? 

No ; the Catholic Church declares it sinful 
to force people to join her communion, or to 
punish for heresy or false religion those outside 
her fold. With Tertuilian ("Ad Scapulam"), 
she declares that "It is assuredly no part of 
religion to compel religion — to which free will 
and not force should lead us." Conversion is 
a matter of persuasion, and forced conversion 
simply means hypocrisy. With St. Paul she 
declares: " What have I to do with judging 
them that are outside ? Them who are outside 
God will judge" (I. Cor. v. 12, 13). As to in- 
flicting bodily penalties, according to canon 
law any one who takes part in the shedding of 
blood becomes by the very fact irregular, or 
incapable of receiving or exercising Holy Or- 
ders. 

We regret that Catholic rulers, Catholic ec- 
clesiastics, and Catholic people have often as a 
matter of fact persecuted. We denounce as 
strongly as Protestants do the dragonnades of 
Louis XIV., the enforced conversions of the 
Moors and Jews in Spain, the cruelty and the 
excesses that often attended the punishment by 
the slate of heresy, which used to be regarded 
as a political crime. 

Those were times of severity and cruelty. 
Thank God they have passed away for ever. 



220 



The Question Box. 



(J. Rickaby, " Persecution, " Catholic Truth 
Society publications, vol. xxxvi.) 

" I heartily pray," writes Cardinal Gibbons, 
"that religious intolerance may never take root 
in our favored land. May the only king to 
force our conscience be the King of kings ; 
may the only prison erected among us for the 
sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a 
troubled conscience ; and may our only motive 
for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but 
the love of truth and of God y \ ("Faith of 
Our Fathers,'' p. 297). 

By what right did Catholic sovereigns per- 
secute men for their opinions ? 

No Catholic government ever persecuted a 
man for a mere private opinion, but for the 
public teaching and spread of opinions which 
were tliought destructive of society. So to-day, 
every government in the w r orld claims the right 
to punish men for certain crimes, no matter 
what the plea of private opinion. In a court 
of law, an anarchist might plead conscientious 
motives for the murder of King Humbert or 
President McKinley, a socialist might justify 
his stealing by his theory of the injustice of 
private ownership, a bigamist might plead that 
he was a Mormon, a publisher of indecent 
literature that he was merely exercising a pri- 
vate right— yet the law would not recognize 



The Charge of Intolerance. 221 



any of these pleas, else society would be power- 
less to protect itself against any form of vice. 

Catholic rulers regarded heresy as destruc- 
tive of the social order, and against the law of 
Christendom which made it a political crime, 
and while we denounce those monarchs w r ho 
endeavored to force religion on unbelievers at 
the point of the sword, as Charlemagne, L,ouis 
XIV., or Philip II., contrary to the principle 
of the Catholic Church, we cannot, on the 
other hand, blame them for punishing those 
whom they considered enemies of the state. 
This becomes more plain when we study the 
immoral, irreligious, and anti-social principles 
of the Albigenses, the Hussites, and the Wyc- 
lifites. 

Is it not due to Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the 
other great Reformers that to-day men are no 
longer imprisoned, tortured, or burned for their 
religion ? 

Would not Catholics persecute Protestants to- 
day, if they had the power ? 

No ; for the Reformers in every country 
where they obtained power, Germany, Eng- 
land, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, the Nether- 
lands, preached and practised the most bitter 
intolerance. Luther held that the Anabap- 
tists ought to be burned, declared all meas- 
ures lawful against Catholics, and invoked the 



222 



The Question Box, 



civil power against Carlstadt and the Zwin- 
glians. In Saxony blasphemy was punished 
w 7 ith death, and heresy with banishment. The 
Calvinists w r ere equally bitter. Calvin burned 
Servetus for denying the Trinity, and w T rote a 
book in defence of the right of persecution. 
Bucer and Melancthon congratulated him on 
his action, and also wrote to the same purpose. 

In England the history of the penal laws 
of Henry VIII., Elizabeth, Edward VI., James 
I., Charles I., Cronrwell, Charles II. is a his- 
tory of fines, imprisonment, banishment, tor- 
ture, and death for the practice of the Catholic 
religion (Cardinal Moran, 1 'Historical Sketch 
of the Persecutions suffered by the Catholics 
of Ireland"; Dublin Review, Jan., 1882; W. 
S. Lilly, Dublin Review, July, 1891 ; Hallam, 
11 Constitutional History of England," vol. iii. 
pp. 359, 381, et seq.; Gerard, "The Condi- 
tion of Catholics under James I." ; D. Murphy, 
S.J., " Cromwell in Ireland " Records of the 
English Catholics under the Penal L,aws, from 
the archives of the See of West minster 
Cranmer advocated persecution, and burned 
many Protestants at the stake before openly 
professing Protestantism himself. Ranke and 
Hume both call Elizabeth's High Commission 
a Protestant inquisition. We find the English 
Parliament of James I. urging persecution as 
* 4 necessary to advance the glory of God," 



The Charge of Intolerance. 



22$ 



while the Scotch Parliament in 1560 decreed 
death to all Catholics. Archbishop Usher de- 
clared : H To give any toleration to Papists is 
a grievous sin " (Neale, " History of the Puri- 
tans,' ' vol. ii. p. 469) ; John Wesle} T at the 
time of the Gordon riots, 1780, wrote : " They 
(Catholics) are not to be tolerated by any gov- 
ernment, Protestant, Mohammedan, or pagan" 
(Canon Flanagan, "History of the Church in 
England," vol. i. p. 380; W. J. Amherst, 
S.J., "History of Catholic Emancipation"); 
John Knox, who deemed persecution a holy 
and a sacred duty, strongly urged the Eng- 
lish people to kill Queen Mary and all her 
priests with her (Milner, Letter XLIX., " The 
End of Controversy"). 

There is therefore not the slightest evidence 
to show that the Reformation ever upheld, in 
doctrine or practice, the toleration that exists 
everywhere to day by force of circumstances. 
Religious toleration is a practical necessity, un- 
less men wish to live in a state of chronic war 
and discord ; the common good demands it. 
It is wrong, however, to base it on the prin- 
ciple of indifferentism w r hich declares that 
certainty in religious matters is impossible, 
and that one religion is as good as another. 

Let me quote an unbiased non-Catholic wit- 
ness on this question, W. Lecky, in his 
"Rationalism in Europe," vol. ii. pp. 57-61: 



224 



The Question Box. 



" But what shall we say of a church (Prot- 
estant) that was but a thing of yesterday; a 
church that had as } T et no service to show, 
no claims upon the gratitude of mankind ; a 
church that was by profession the creature of 
private judgment, and was in reality gene- 
rated by the intrigues of a corrupt court, which 
nevertheless suppressed by force worship that 
multitudes deemed necessary for their salva- 
tion, and t>y all her organs, and with all her 
energies, persecuted those who clung to the 
religion of their fathers ? What shall we say 
of a religion which comprised at most but a 
fourth part of the Christian world, and which 
the first explosion of private judgment had 
shivered into countless sects, w T hich was never- 
theless so pervaded by the spirit of dogmatism 
that each of these sects asserted its distinctive 
doctrines with the same confidence, and per- 
secuted with the same unhesitating virulence, 
as the Church which was venerable with the 
homage of more than twelve centuries ? . . . 
Persecution among the early Protestants was 
a distinct and definite doctrine, digested into 
elaborate treatises, and enforced against the 
most inoffensive as against the most formidable 
sects. It was the doctrine of the palmiest days 
of Protestantism. It was taught by those who 
are justly esteemed the greatest of its leaders." 

There is not the slightest reason to suspect 



The Charge of Intolerance, 225 

that Catholics would persecute to-day if they 
had the power. The Church claims no coer- 
cive authority over those outside her fold. She 
considers faith an act not only of the intel- 
lect, but of the will, which ought to be per- 
fectly free when there is question of God's 
truth. Once the pure gospel of Christ has 
been lost by men, nothing but a willingness to 
believe and a conviction of the intellect can 
by God's grace give it back. When Lord 
Baltimore started the Catholic colony of Mary- 
land, he decreed that "no person within the 
province professing to believe in Jesus Christ 
shall be anyways troubled, molested, or dis- 
countenanced, for his or her religion, or in 
the free exercise thereof/ ' Protestants, per- 
secuted in Virginia, sought refuge in the 
Catholic province of Maryland. Does not this 
compare favorably with the conduct of the 
Puritans who, on the accession of Cromwell, 
disfranchised the Catholics of the province, with 
the laws of New England which put Quakers 
to death, or the intolerance of other colonies 
that legislated against Catholics? (Bancroft, 
" History of the U. S.," vol i. p. 233, et seq.; 
Hergenrother, "Church and State," vol. ii. 
xvi. par. 15 ; Backus, f< History of the Baptists 
in New England,' ' vol. i. 290 ; Yorke, " Yorke- 
Wendte Controversy/' pp. 182-205.) 



226 



The Question Box. 



Was not the Spanish Inquisition one of the 
most inhuman institutions the world has ever 
known, with its imprisonment, torture, and 
burning of heretics for conscientious belief ? 

The Spanish Inquisition was no more cruel 
than the Genevan Inquisition of Calvin, the 
Court of High Commission of Elizabeth (Hume, 
History, ch. xii.; Neale, " History of the Puri- 
tans,' ' vol. i. p. 10), or the penal laws against 
Catholics in England, Scotland, Ireland, Hol- 
land, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Is it 
fair to speak continually of this tribunal, in- 
different to statistics, oblivious of comparison 
with Protestant belief and practice in the six- 
teenth century, ignoring the spirit of the age 
which everywhere regarded heresy as a crime 
punishable by the state, and cared little for 
severe punishments which no nation to-day 
would tolerate for an instant? Is not this to 
excite the passions and prejudices of the ig- 
norant ? 

The Spanish Inquisition was established in 
1478 by Ferdinand and Isabella to punish the 
apostate Jews of Spain, who were openly pro- 
fessing Christianity for gain and preferment, 
while secretly practising Judaism and favoring 
the Moors. These Maranos, through their 
wealth and intermarriage with noble families, 
were deemed a menace to the unity of the 
kingdom. 



The Charge of Intolerance. 



227 



After the conquest of Granada many of the 
Moors also became Christians, net out of con- 
viction but for personal gain, and uniting with 
the Jews, were greatly feared by the govern- 
ment. Popular hatred of the Jews, for real or 
supposed crimes commonly attributed to them, 
added to the bitterness with which apostates 
were sought after and punisled according to 
the law. The Inquisition, however, did not 
force Christianity on those who did not be- 
lieve, but prosecuted those who professed a 
Christianity they inwardly rejected. Under 
Philip II. the Inquisition, besides preventing 
the introduction of Protestantism into Spain, 
also saved it from the religious wars of France 
and Germany. Finally, at the close of the 
eighteenth century, its aim was chiefly directed 
against the introduction of French infidelity 
into Spain. It was finally abolished in 1830. 

We must put ourselves in the place of the 
Catholic people of the time. Heresy was a 
crime that the state considered worse than 
treason, and punished with death. Catholic 
rulers, knowing that the introduction of a false 
religion inevitably carried with it religious war 
and social disturbance, naturally, out of zeal 
for the Church they loved and solicitude for 
the kingdom they ruled, would prevent this to 
f .he utmost of their power. Was not the 
Church in possession for centuries ? Was it 



228 



The Question Box. 



not the duty of a Christian prince to safeguard 
his people from false teaching? 

One would think that the Reformers held 
different views on this matter. On what prin- 
ciples could a new religion founded on the 
individual's private interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures, and disclaiming infallibility, persecute 
another which demanded the same liberty of 
denial ? And yet, as Rousseau declared, " The 
Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, 
and its authors universal persecutors ' ' (" I^et- 
tres de la Mont")- A Protestant historian, 
Hallam ( ' * Literature of Europe, " vol. ii. ch. 
ii.), bears the same testimony: M Persecution 
for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was 
in the sixteenth century the principle as well 
as the practice of every church. It was held 
inconsistent with the sovereignty of the magis- 
trate to permit any religion but his own, in- 
consistent with his duty to suffer any but the 
true." And again : ft Persecution is the deadly 
original sin of the reformed churches, which 
cools every honest man's zeal for their cause, 
in proportion as his reading becomes more ex- 
tensive" (" Const. Hist.," vol. i. ch. ii.) 

Why, then, is there so much said of the 
Spanish Inquisition ? Has it peculiar horrors, 
or are its practices merely a reflex of the man- 
ners of the age ? Men speak of the number of 
its victims. They forget that the authority in 



The Charge of Intolerance. 229 



this matter is a Spanish priest, Elorente, who 
was false to both Church and country, and 
wrote his history after his banishment from 
Spain. Moreover he declares that he burned 
nearly all the official reports. What would 
any fair-minded man say of a historian who, 
when asked to substantiate certain statistics, 
would calmly declare that he had burned the 
original documents ? In the England of the 
period (159S) Sir James Stephen reckons M 800 
executions a year in the forty English coun- 
ties" (" History of the English Criminal 
Law," vol. i. p. 467). 

Is it fair to pass over in silence the many 
Catholics who suffered the death penalty for 
their faith in England and Ireland under Henry 
VIII., Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., Crom- 
well, and Charles II.? (Card. Moran, "His- 
torical Sketch of the Persecutions in Ireland" ; 
Dublin Review, Jan., 1882; July, 1891). 

Others complain of the severity of the pun- 
ishment by fire, the use of torture to extract 
confession, the terrible dungeons in which the 
accused were confined, the unjust mode of 
procedure, etc. We simply challenge com- 
parison with any other country where Prot- 
estantism was dominant. 

Thousands were burnt at the stake for witch- 
craft in England, Scotland, and Germany, 
others tot heresy in England aad Switzerland- 



230 The Question Box. 

" — — » 

(" Chambers's Encyclopedia " ; Charles W. 
Upham, ' ' Salem Witchcraft/') Boiling to 
death, half-hanging, disembowelling and quar- 
tering were common penalties under Henry 
VIII. and Elizabeth. Why, the death penalty 
was awarded to a theft above twelve pence by 
the English law of the time! (1577). (Rye, 
" England as seen by Foreigners in the days 
of Elizabeth,' ' p. 269.) 

The use of torture was common in nearly all 
the European states until the close of the 
eighteenth century. It was used frequently 
by Elizabeth against Catholics, even though it 
was contrary to the common law. Hallam 
writes ("Constitutional History, V vol. i. p. 
200): "The rack seldom stood idle in the 
Tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth's 
reign. " In this matter, therefore, the Inquisi- 
tion merely shared one of the errors of the time. 

The dungeons of the Tower in which Catho- 
lic priests were imprisoned for the mere say- 
ing of Mass were far worse than the Inquisition 
prisons, being "dark cells below the high- 
water mark, infested with rats and vermin" 
(Jardine (Protestant), " Reading on the Use of 
Torture in England "). 

The mode of trial was far more just than 
the English law, which concealed from the 
accused not only the names of his accusers but 
the charges also until he appeared in court; 



The Charge of Intolerance. 23 1 



and which denied him both the use of wit- 
nesses and advocate, wdiile the Inquisition al- 
lowed both (see James Stephen, ibid., p. 350). 

Undoubtedly there were many abuses inci- 
dent to the tyrannical use of the royal power. 
But who will deny that the same objection 
holds good of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns 
of Protestant England? We must not forget 
that the Inquisition was in great part a politi- 
cal institution, as Protestant waiters like Ranke 
(German), Guizot (French), and Creighton 
(English) admit, to render secure the stability 
of the Spanish throne. Time and time again 
we find the Popes— Leo X., Paul III., Paul 
IV., Sixtus IV. — protesting against the aiDi- 
trary conduct of the Spanish kings in using 
the Inquisition. 

Place yourself, therefore, at tue view- 
point of the sixteenth century ; study the prin* 
ciples and practices of the age. Choose be- 
tween Isabella, Ferdinand, and Philip II., and 
Slizabeth, Henry VIII., and Cromwell. 

Robespierre and his associates in the Fiench 
Revolution, while deluging France in the blood 
of her best and noblest men and women, 
hypocritically declaimed against the cruelty 
of the Inquisition in Spain. {American Catho- 
He Quarterly, vol. i. p. 254, vol. xii. p 
69; Dublin Review, June, 1850, Jan., 1867; 
De Maistre, " Letters on the Spanish Inquisi* 



232 



The Question Box. 



tion"; Baltnes, i 1 Protestantism and Catholic- 
ity Compared"; Smith, " The Spanish In- 
quisition," Catholic Truth Society publica- 
tions; Hefele, " History of Cardinal Ximenes," 
chs. xviii. xix.) 

What excuse is there for the cruelty of Inno- 
cent III*, who ordered Simon de Montfcrt to per- 
secute the Albigenses? 

The real cause of the crusade against the 
Albigenses was their immoral and irreligious 
doctrines, whereby they were a menace to the 
social order then existing, which was founded 
on the principles of the Christian faith. They 
held that there were two Christs, and that the 
bad Christ suffered on the cross ; rejected the 
Blessed Eucharist; disowned the Old Testa- 
ment, its law and its God ; denied the resur- 
rection of the body ; declared oaths unlawful ; 
condemned marriage ; called the begetting of 
children a crime. Not content with preaching 
these doctrines everywhere, and causing social 
disturbance thereby, they destroyed churches 
and monasteries, murdered priests, and spared 
neither orphans, age nor sex, as we learn from 
the Third Council of Lateran in 1179. 

We ought not to blame Pope Innocent III a 
for taking severe measures, because one hun- 
dred years of preaching and persuasion had 
Utterly failtd, and thtst disturbs weri b#* 



The Charge of Intolerance. 233 

coming stronger every year. Imagine in our 
jwn country, to-day, that in a certain State 
thousands of fanatics began to deny, theoreti- 
cally and practically, the lawfulness of oaths, 
the dignity of marriage, and destroyed hun- 
dreds of churches, massacring all that opposed 
their teaching. Suppose that the governor of 
the State was powerless to handle them be- 
cause of their number. Would you blame 
President Roosevelt for sending United States 
troops against them ? Do you blame the 
Allied Powers for uniting to secure in China 
the protection of Christians against the atroci- 
ties of the Boxers ? We do not apologize for 
the terrible cruelties of the campaign against 
the Albigenses. Those were cruel times. But, 
as Sheridan rightly said: " War is hell." 

Did not your Church order the massacie of 
thousands of inoffensive French Huguenots on St. 
Bartholomew's day (Aug. 24, 1572), and the 
Pope chant a Te Deum for it in Rome ? 

How could an infallible Pope authorize and 
approve the massacre of ioo ? ooo inoffensive 
French Protestants whose only offence was their 
refusal to obey the Church of Rome ? 

Religion had nothing whatever to do with 
the massacre of St. Bartholomew. It was in- 
spired out of purely political motives by the 
unscrupulous, irre/igious Catherine de Medici, 



2 3-;- The Question Box, 

«i ■ ■» 

who urged it on her sou Charles IX., either to 
forestall a real plot against the life of the king, 
or to anticipate the threatened Huguenot ven- 
geance on account of the attempted assassi- 
nation of Admiral Coligny on August 22. 

The court of France, anxious to right it- 
self before the world, declared by Parliament, 
August 26, that in carrying out this severe 
measure it had merely anticipated a plot of 
Coligny and his associates against the life of 
the king and princes of the royal family. 
Margaret of Valois admits the existence of 
this plot in her memoirs (x. p. 408). Be this 
as it may, it is just as absurd to accuse Cathe- 
rine or her weakling son of zeal for religion 
as it would be to accuse a modern saloon- 
keeper of zeal for the cause of total absti- 
nence. 

It is certainly false that the massacre of the 
Huguenots was long premeditated, or that the 
saintly Pius V. knew anything of it (Civil t& 
Cattolica, Set. vi. vol. viii., p. 679; vol. ix. 
267, 662; vol. x. p. 268; vol', xi. 14). 

Gregory XIII. had a Te Deum sung in the 
Church of St. Mark on September 5 because 
he believed, on the testimony of the French 
ambassador Beauville, that a Huguenot plot to 
murder the king and place the Huguenot 
Henry Bourbon on the throne had been dis- 
covered, and its authors had suffered the 



The Charge of Intolerance, 235 



penalty of their crime. When he learned the 
real facts of the case, he expressed his horror 
at the deed (Brantome, " Vie de M. 1'Aniiral 
de Chastillon," viii. p. 190). His joy is no 
more extraordinary than the congratulations of 
President McKinley to the Prince of Wales 
after he had escaped the assassin's bullet. 
We must remember that there was no telegraph 
in those days, to correct the false views sent at 
first by the king to Rome. 

Philip of Spain and Queen Elizabeth both 
accepted the account of the Huguenot con- 
spiracy (Theiner, " Annates," xlvii.) All re- 
membered the conspiracy of Amboise to seize 
the person of King Francis II., the assassina- 
tion of the Duke of Guise under the probable 
connivance of Coligny (Lingard, "History of 
England," vol. vii. p. 320), and the constant 
murders that had marked the history of the Hu- 
guenots. There was nothing, therefore, to ren- 
der the account improbable, so that no one can 
blame Pope Gregory for accepting the story. 

Were the Huguenots inoffensive citizens? 
No one with the slightest knowledge of the 
facts could say so. For years they had en- 
deavored, by secret understanding with the 
enemies 01 France and by open rebellion, to 
destroy the Catholic faith and overthrow the 
government ; they had three times started civil 
war, and although granted after each defeat 



236 



The Question Box, 



full amnesty and toleration, they still con- 
spired against the king ; they delivered two 
important cities of France to England, and 
lastly, these inoffensive, freedom-loving, perse- 
cution-hating Calvinists destroyed some fifty 
cathedrals and five hundred churches, de- 
molished the tombs of Catholic kings and 
saints, profaned sacred shrines, burned mon- 
asteries, murdered priests after torture only 
comparable to that of the Chinese Boxers, 
butchered thousands of defenceless men and 
women, burned and sacked hundreds of towns 
and villages. Could any sensible man expect 
Catholics to be quiet in the face of such out- 
rages ? 

L,et us hear Protestant testimony as to the 
spirit of meekness that characterized French 
Protestants: "Whatever may be the popular 
notion respecting the necessary intolerance of 
the Catholics, it is an indisputable fact that, 
early in the seventeenth centum, they dis- 
played in France a spirit of forbearance and 
Christian charity to which the Protestants could 
make no pretence " (Buckle, " History of Civil- 
ization, " vol. i. ch. viii. p. 518). 

(i Whoever has read the great Calvinist 
divines and, above all, whoever has studied 
their history, must know that in the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries the desire of perse- 
cuting their enemies burned as hctly among 



The Charge of Intolerance. 



237 



them as it did among any of the Catholics even 
in the v/orst days of Papal dominion'' (vol. i, 
ch. viii. p. 505). 

How many were massacred on St. Bartholo- 
mew's day? The numbers vary from one 
thousand to one hundred thousand, though 
the Calvinists could only succeed in obtaining 
seven hundred and eighty-six names for in- 
sertion in their so-called " Marty rology," pub- 
lished in 1582. A generous number would be 
two thousand. Even Froude, in his 1 • History 
of England " (vol. x. ch. xxiii. p. 408), ad- 
mitted that without exact statistics we should 
at least divide the extreme number by ten. 

Let us ask, in conclusion, is it fair to be 
for ever and always pointing to this page of 
history, when Catholics can say with Christ to 
the accusers, 4 'He that is without sin among 
you, let him first cast a stone " (John viii. 7). 

Is it fair to pass over the frightful massacre 
at Nimes on St. Michael's day, 1567, inscigated 
by the Calvinistic preachers, when two hun- 
dred and fifty Catholics were mercilessly butch- 
ered one by one, and their bodies cast into 
a deep well ? Is it fair to pass over the murder 
of the clergy in the Corpus Christi procession 
at Pamier? What, too, of the outrages at 
Montaubon, Rodez, Orthez, Valence, Troyes, 
Tours, Bayeux, Grenoble, Poitiers, and Le 
Mans ? 



238 The Question Box. 

In a word, any one that recalls the seventy- 
one years of civil war (1557-1628), in which 
all the evil passions of men were roused to the 
utmost, the difference of religion fanning the 
flame, will not be a bit surprised to meet with 
frightful atrocities on both sides. If during 
our civil war a regiment of Protestant soldiers 
should have been guilty of the most shameful 
outrages in the South, would any one be justi- 
fied in throwing the blame upon the several 
denominations to which they belonged? 

Remember also that in combating the vio- 
lence of Protestant zeal, which, not content 
with toleration, sought totally to extirpate 
the Catholic faith, and by constant treason 
at home and abroad to undermine the French 
monarchy, the Catholics of France were merely 
acting in self-defence. Surely they had more 
right to use violence in preserving the faith of 
centuries, than the Protestants in Germany, Eng- 
land, Sweden to use violence in establishing a 
new religion. (Rev. Wni. Loughnan, "The 
Huguenots"; " The Massacre of St. Bartholo- 
mew, " Catholic Truth Society publications; 
Hergenrother, " Church and State," xvii. sec. 
22; Amer. Catk. Quarterly , vol. xix. p. 508; 
Dublin Review, Oct., 1865; Parsons, "Studies 
in History/ ' vol. iii. p. 393-402.) 



Was not the revocation of the Edict of Nantes 



The Charge of Intolerance, 



239 



one of the most cruel acts known to modern 
history ? 

Suppose for a moment that it was, this per- 
sonal act of Louis XIV. is no more to be at- 
tributed to the Catholic Church than the impure 
life of the Grand Monarch to the principles of 
the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a fact of his- 
tory that Innocent XI. openly disapproved of 
his harsh measures against the French Hugue- 
nots, and through his nuncio in London re- 
quested James II. tc intercede with Louis XIV. 
in their favor (Hergenrbther, 14 Church and 
State," vol. ii. p. 379, who quotes Macaulay, 
Lingard, Ranke, Dbllinger, etc.) 

By the Edict of Nantes, in 1598, Henry IV. 
granted a number of privileges to the French 
Huguenots, hoping thereby to put an end to 
the long series of civil wars that had divided 
the kingdom. It never effected its purpose. 
In 1685 Louis XIV., acting on the Protestant 
principle set forth at Westphalia despite the 
protests of the Church, " cujus regio^ illius est 
religio" that "the kingdom should follow the 
religion of the prince," decided to revoke these 
privileges. These edicts were revocable at the 
will of the monarch, as Grotius tells us, and 
the parliament of 1598 had expressly declared 
•hat they could be revoked, if a future sove- 
reign should deem it for the public good. We 
must remember that the Edict not only gave 



240 



The Question Box. 



religious toleration but gave the Huguenots 
political independence, which enabled them to 
stir up disorder whenever it suited their in- 
terests. (" Life of Richelieu/ 9 Lodge, of Glas- 
gow, 1S96). 

It does not concern us to defend the political 
policy of Louis XIV. The followers of Calvin 
surely could not find fault with so perfect an 
imitation of their master, who in Geneva ex- 
pelled the sect of the Libertines, burned Serve- 
tus at the stake, beheaded Gruet, imprisoned 
Gentile, and upheld in his writings the most 
drastic and cruel treatment of heretics to be 
found in all history. Those in glass houses 
ought not to throw r stones. 

We are just as ready to denounce the severe 
method of Louis XIV., especially the dragon- 
nades, as was Innocent XI., the Pope of the time f 

Did not the Catholic Queen Mary of England 
by her persecution of Protestants merit the *itle 
of " Bloody Mary " ? 

She surely does not deserve the title as much 
as the cruel Protestant Queen Elizabeth. In 
the last three years of her reign there were un- 
doubtedly bitter persecutions, but the motive 
was simply political. The}- were not based on 
Catholic principles. Men are so apt to forget 
that the Protestants in her reign strove to de - 
throat her (Wyafct, M Lady Jane Grey "), 



The Charge of Intolerance, 241 



made attempts upon her life, prayed publicly 
for her death, and published many treasonable 
pamphlets against her. Cranmer and his asso- 
ciates were executed by* the laws they had 
themselves devised under Edward VI. and car- 
ried out against the Anabaptists. Any one 
who knows the utter worthlessness of Cranmer's 
character, and his burning of the Protestants 
Lambert, Frith, Allen, Knell, Van Par, and 
Askew, will surely see a just retribution in 
his fate (Stone's " I,ife of Queen Mary"). 

Does your doctrine of excommunication and 
anathema imply a delivering up of a man to 
eternal perdition? 

No, it is the penalty of exclusion from the 
Church. Her object, however, is to warn the 
sinner of the danger he is running of eternal 
ruin. St. Paul, when he said (Gal. i. 8) "let 
him be anathema 5 ' who preaches another gos- 
pel, did not thereby consign to hell men whom 
he would have died to save, but wished to de- 
nounce most strongly the teachers of false doc- 
trine. The Church follows the example of St. 
Paul in pronouncing her anathemas {American 
Cath. Qua? / -terly ) 1887, p. 663). 

Is not your claim of forbidding Catholics to 
read certain books intolerable ? 

No ; the right of the Church to prevent her 



242 



The Question Box, 



children reading books that are either immoral 
or irreligious, arises from the fact that she is the 
divinely appointed teacher and guardian of the 
revelation of Jesus Christ. It is her duty to 
warn the faithful against evil reading, just as it 
is the state's office to prevent the sale of ob- 
scene literature or the staging of immoral pla} T s. 
It is an Apostolic practice, for we read in the 
Acts (xix. 19) of the Ephesians burning their 
books of magic after the preaching of St. Paul. 
In the same spirit the Council of Nice pro- 
scribed the works of Arius, and Leo the Great 
the works of the Priscillianists in Spain. Only 
those who are totally indifferent to dogmatic 
belief, or who have lost all conviction of the 
essential difference between good and evil, can 
deny this right, so beneficial alike to the indi- 
vidual and society. 

Why is your Church opposed to cremation ? 

On May 19, 1886, a Roman decree forbade 
Catholics " to join those societies whose object 
it was to spread the practice of cremation, or 
to leave orders for the cremation of one's 
body or that of another." The reasons for the 
Church's opposition are : 

* 1 st. Although there is no intrinsic reason 
why cremation is unlawful, and no divine pre- 
cept to l)ury the dead, still it is contrary to 
the universal practice of the Jews under the 

» 



The Charge of Intolerance. 243 



Old I^aw (Gen. xxiii. 4; Tob. ii. 7-9) and the 
Christians under the New. 

2d. It is to-day advocated by modern un- 
believers, who knowing the Christian respect 
for the dead arises from the fact of the resur- 
rection, hope by this practical method to under- 
mine the belief in immortality. 4 'Catholics 
have grave reason to oppose cremation/ ' writes 
the pantheistic Freemason Ghisleri (Almanacco 
dei Libert Muratori for i88x) ; "this purifica- 
tion of the dead by means of fire would shake 
to its foundations Catholic predominance, based 
on the terror with which it has surrounded 
death.' * . . . "Oh rapid transformation! 
— in one short hour commingled with the inner 
being of the great All." 

3d. The early Christians buried the dead 
after the example of Christ as a protest against 
the pagan denial of the resurrection, and out 
of respect for the body which had been the 
dwelling place of God by the reception of the 
Eucharist. 

4th. Cremation to-day is opposed to the 
whole spirit of the burial service of the Catho- 
lic Church, although should cremation be made 
a compulsory law, as some of its advocates de- 
mand, she could easily adapt her prayers and 
funeral services to this new method. 

5th. Medical men and jurists have opposed 
cremation on the ground that it destroys all 



244 



The Question Box. 



evidence of the cause of death, so often needed 
in criminal cases of poisoning. 

6th. There is no objection to cremation in 
times of pestilence, or in such cases as the 
late flood in Galveston, when it is needed for 
the public good. (' i Cremation and Christian- 
ity," Dublin Review ■, April, 1890; " The Ethics 
of Cremation,' ' The Month, May, 1875; "Is 
Cremation Christian Burial? " ibid., 1884) 

Why is your Church so bitterly opposed to the 
Freemasons, who are often good, charitable 
members of society? 

Why do you forbid Catholics joining the 
Masons ? 

Do the Masons date back to the time of King 

Solomon ? 

What secret orders are forbidden by your 
Church in this country? 

Why don't the Church condemn all secret 
organizations ? 

As early as 1738 Clement XII. excommuni- 
cated the Freemasons, and his example has 
been followed by Benedict XIV. (1751), Pius 
VII. (1821), Iyeo XII. (1826), Pius IX. (1869), 
and Leo XIII. Catholics, therefore, who join 
this society contrary to the known law of the 
Church, are guilty of grievous sin, and incur 
the extreme penalty of excommunication, or 
exclusion from membership. This deprives the 



The Charge of Intolerance. 245 



Mason of the Sacraments, of all share in the 
public prayers of the Church, and finally of 
Christian burial. The prohibition of the Church 
is enough for the Catholic who recognizes her 
divine right to command, and knows that it is 
only exercised for the common good of her 
children. She, the great advocate of charity 
in all centuries, would * undoubtedly not 
condemn any society of men for its benevo- 
lence or love of the brethren, or wantonly leg- 
islate to deprive her children of the money and 
help they might require in the hour of need. 
The reasons of her condemnation of Masonry 
are : 

1st. Masonry is undoubtedly a sect, with a 
code of belief, ritual, and ceremonies, standing 
for mere naturalism in religion and for a moral- 
ity founded on merely human motives. Fre- 
quently the Masons of Europe have claimed 
Freemasonry as the religion of nature^ and the 
Catholic Church therefore, as the supernatural 
religion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can- 
not allow her members to join it. One cannot 
be a Mason and a Catholic at the same time, 
any more than he could be both Methodist and 
Catholic. "The God of Freemasonry is Na- 
ture. . . • There is no need of privileged 
agents making a trade of their pretended media- 
tion" (Revue Magonnique y Sept., 1835); and 
again : * ' Freemasonry is progress under every 



246 



The Question Box. 



form, in every branch of human activit3\ It 
teaches us that there is only one religion, one 
true and therefore natural religion, the worship 
of humanity. . . . God is only the product 
of a generous but erroneous conception of hu- 
manity " (Jan., 1870, p. 539^. 

2d. It is undoubtedly certain that the Masons 
have been noted in Italy, France, and other 
countries for a marked hatred of the Church, 
which, veiling itself under the name and love 
of liberty (liberalism), helped in the spoliation 
of the Church in 1870, forced the clergy to 
enter the army, closed many religious houses 
by excessive taxation, appropriated church 
revenues, favored civil marriage, secularized 
education, and in public print and speech re- 
peatedly pledged themselves, as in Naples in 
1870, "to the prompt and radical abolition of 
Catholicit}', and by every means to procure its 
utter destruction." You may say that the 
American and English Masons are not of this 
type, and have openly severed all connection 
with these atheistical Continental Masons. I 
answer that if Albert Pike's book, "Morals 
and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scot- 
tish Rite of Freemasonry," be authentic, the 
esoteric doctrine of the higher degrees is es- 
sentially anti- Christian and immoral. (C, Cop- 
pens, S.J., "Is Freemasonry an ti- Christian ? 99 
Amer. EecL Review > Dec, 1899). The Church 



The Charge of Intolerance. 247 



as a universal society makes laws that have a 
universal application. Nor is it at all certain 
that American Masons refuse fellowship to the 
Masons of Latin Europe and America. 

3d. It is also contrary to morality to pledge 
one's self to absolute secrecy from those who 
have a right to demand a revelation, especial- 
ly when death is the penalty attached to dis- 
loyalty to that oath — the case with Freemasons. 

4th. Practically, Masonry in these United 
States, by putting all religions on a level, 
fosters the spirit of indifferentism, which is 
only unbelief in disguise, and substitutes in 
the mind of the ignorant the lodge for the 
church. I have heard scores of Protestant 
Masons say, on our missions to non-Catholics, 
n My lodge is church enough for me " ; " the 
only religion I believe in is the doing good to 
my fellow-man," etc. I have frequently, too, 
heard their Protestant church-going wives trace 
their husbands loss of Christian faith to the 
lodge. Some Protestant denominations have 
come out strongly against secret societies (The 
National Association of Chicago), but they 
lack that universal power to command which 
only a divine authority like the Catholic Church 
can exercise. 

The condemnation (1895) of the Knights of 
Pythias, the Oddfellows, and the Sons of Tem- 
perance was based on the conviction that these 



248 



The Question Box. 



societies were doing harm to the faith of Catho- 
lics. Other secret societies have not been in- 
cluded in this condemnation, (" Freemasonry 
in Latin-America," Amer. Cath. Quarterly , vol. 
xxiii. p. 802 ; "The Laws of the Church and 
Secret Societies," vol. v. p. 252.) 

Why are Catholics opposed to the American 
system of public schools? 

Because they make no provision for the re- 
ligious instruction of children, which Catholics 
consider absolutely necessary. 

It is the direct duty of the Catholic Church, 
as the divine, infallible teacher of the revelation 
of Jesus Christ (- 1 Teach ye all nations," Matt, 
xxviii. 19), to safeguard the religious educa- 
tion of each succeeding generation. With her 
it is vastly more important to know well the 
doctrines of faith and morals than to be able to 
work out a problem in geometr} 7 , or to know 
the position of Cape Nome upon the map. An 
infidel or an indifferentist Protestant may not 
appreciate the value of a religious education 
entering into the daily life of a child, but any 
fair-minded man, no matter what his religious 
convictions, must admit that Catholics, holding 
their doctrines as infallible certainties and not 
as mere opinions, must consider their religion 
when there is question of the education of their 
children. 



The Charge of Intolerance. 249 



Although the divine commission of the Catho- 
lic Church to teach the world directly concerns 
religious truth, she is essentially bound to off- 
set any danger to faith and morals incident to 
the prosecution of secular studies. She there- 
fore, on principle, demands whenever possible 
a good Catholic education for her children, and 
must needs view with disfavor the principle on 
which exclusively secular education is based. 
The Catholic, therefore, objects to the public- 
school system : 

1st, Because he considers the separation of 
human learning from religion a false principle. 
The total ignoring, day by day, of the most 
vital element in education — religion— is not 
Christian, and must in man)' cases lead to bad 
results. Its tendency is to foster the spirit of 
indifferentisni in matters of religion, and to lead 
the child to believe that Christianity need not 
enter into its every- day life, but is reserved for 
Sunday and the Sunday-school. God is often 
lost sight of; the motive and basis of morality 
becomes merely natural ; there is a general 
weakening in the grasp of fundamental Chris- 
tian principles. 

2d. It is practically impossible, taking lium^n 
nature as it is, or considering, for example, the 
subject matter of a history class, to avoid allu- 
sions to religion. A non-Catholic teacher must 
put forth some views of morality, and Catholics 



250 



The Question Box. 



claim that these belong to religion. Even un» 
wittingly, because of his ignorance of Catholic 
teaching, he may teach doctrines opposed to 
Catholic principle. Catholics do not want their 
children to be taught that the Pope sold indul- 
gences, or that Luther was a holy man, and 
the Reformation a step forward and a blessing. 

I remember lately a high-school teacher in 
Brooklyn giving as a theme " The Causes and 
Effects of the Reformation," which was treated 
by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and infidel 
pupils. What manner of teaching can that be 
which claims no power to teach authoritatively, 
and simply leaves minds unable to judge for 
themselves open to confusion and uncertainty? 

3d. Again, Catholics realize that children 
are easily worked upon, and that there is a 
close personal relation between a strong-minded 
teacher and an impressionable boy or girl. It 
is natural that prejudiced Protestantism or bla- 
tant infidelity will at times voice its objections 
against the Catholic Church or against Chris- 
tianity. Even when this is not done in so 
many words, the false idea may be conveyed 
by an insinuation, an interrogation, or a mere 
shrug of the shoulders. 

4th. Catholics, again, object to the double 
burden laid upon them of supporting both the 
public and their own parochial schools. They 
hold that as citizens of the United States they 



The Charge of Intolerance. 251 



are entitled to have their conscientious difficul- 
ties about the purely secular education of their 
children considered and respected. This coun 
try acknowledges its obligation to provide foi 
secular education, and Catholics claim that 
such provision should so be made that they can 
avail themselves of it without going against 
their religious principles. They object to the 
exclusion of religion from the schools in which 
their children are taught, and to non- Catholics 
as teachers of their children. 

But you may say that in a country like ours, 
with a mixed population of various religions, 
religion cannot be taught by the state. 
Granted. Catholics do not ask a cent from the 
state to provide catechisms or Bibles, or to 
pay for religious instruction. In all fairness, 
however, they demand that secular training 
be provided for their children by the state, in 
such a manner as not to prevent religious 
teaching by Catholic teachers, as is done 
in other countries, England, Germany, Aus- 
tria, Belgium, where the same conditions pre- 
vail. The state can see to it that the secular 
teaching is up to the required standard, so that 
the public money be well spent. This is a 
mere matter of justice. 

I know very well that many sincere Catho- 
lics have attended the public schools, and that 
the lack of religious instruction was in some 



252 



The Question Box. 



degree made up elsewhere. But no one can 
deny that the general tendency of such educa- 
tion is evil and harmful. 

Indeed, patriotism should protest against the 
exclusion of religion from the schools. Un- 
doubtedly men are better citizens if they are 
good Christians. The fear of God is a stronger 
motive for keeping the law of the land than the 
fear of the police court. 

Furthermore, many Protestant denominations 
have come gradually to the Catholic way of 
thinking, and have provided religious schools 
for their children. (" Catholic Free Schools in 
the United States,' S Avier. Culh. Quarterly, 
1884, p. 713; c< Prof. Fisher on Unsectarianism 
in the Common Schools," ibid., 1889, p. 505; 
" The Idea of a Parochial School, " ibid., 1891, 
p. 441 ; " Liberalistic View of the Public School 
Question, M ibid., 1877, p. 1, 240; " Our Paro- 
chial System, " ibid., 1892, p. 867; "Public 
School System and Protestantism/ 5 ibid., 1&86, 
p. 730; " Religion in Education," ibid., 189 1, 
p. 760.) 



THE OCCASIONS OF SIN. 

Our Church is opposed entirely to dancing, 
card-playing, and all theatre-going. Why are 
your Church laws so lax on these matters? 

The principles of the Catholic Church are 



The Occasions of Sin7 



253 



clear and explicit with regard to amusements. 
God delights in seeing his people enjoy them- 
selves in innocent recreation. The Catholic 
Church declares that it is lawful to see a good, 
pure play in a decent theatre ; that dancing, 
far from being evil in itself, was often a part of 
divine worship in the Old L,aw (II. Kings vi. 
14; Judg. xxi. 21 ; Exod. xv. 20); that card- 
playing around one's fireside or at a public 
euchre may be quite an innocent means of en- 
joyment. 

But if, on the contrary, the theatre becomes 
a school of vice by its immoral plays, if danc- 
ing excites the passions and means the com- 
panionship of the wicked, if card-playing im- 
plies the feverish excitement of the gaming 
table, Christians know at once that in such 
cases amusements in themselves harmless be- 
come the occasions of sin. The Third Plenary 
Council of Baltimore legislated against danger- 
ous amusements, especially certain kinds of 
dancing. 

The Catholic Church declares that any per- 
son, place, or thing that by our natural or ac- 
quired weakness leads us to grievous sin, must 
be avoided under penalty of sin. However, to 
forbid certain amusements in general merely 
because if abused they lead some to sin, is 
peculiarly a Protestant tradition without war- 
rant in reason or in Scripture. 



254 



The Question Box. 



Do Catholics believe that, provided they go to 
church Sunday morning, they can do what they 
please the rest of the day? 

No ! Besides the obligation of attending 
Mass every Sunday under penalty of grievous 
~in, Catholics are also forbidden all unneces- 
sary servile work in order to give the needed 
,est to the body, and in order to devote a cer= 
tain part of the day to God. Remembering, 
however, the words of Christ, "The Sabbath 
was made for man and not man for the Sab- 
bath " (Mark ii. 27), the Catholic Church does 
not prohibit servile work that is absolutely 
necessary, nor frown down innocent amuse= 
ments. There is naught of the Pharisee or 
the Puritan about her. 

What Bible authority is there for changing 
the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of 
the week? 

Who gave the Pope the authority to change a 
command of God ? 

If the Bible is the only guide for the Chris- 
tian, then the Seventh Day Adventist is right in 
observing the Saturday with the Jew. But 
Catholics learn what to believe and do from 
the divine, infallible authority established by 
Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, which in 
Apostolic times made Sunday the day of rest 
to honor our Lord's resurrection on that day, 



Holydays. 



255 



and to mark off clearly the Jew from the Chris- 
tian. St. Justin Martyr (Apol., c. 67) speaks 
of the early Christians meeting for the holy sac- 
rifice of the Mass on Sunday. 

Is it not strange that those who make the 
Bible their only teacher should inconsistently 
follow in this matter the tradition of the 
Church? 

Why do Catholics have so many holydays ? 
Did not Paul find fault with the Galatians for 
this very thing : " Ye observe days, and months, 
and times, and years " ? (Gal. iv. 10). 

The Apostle is not finding fault with God, 
who set aside certain days and seasons as es- 
pecially sacred, namely, the Sabbath (Exod. 
xx. 10), the Sabbatical year (Exod. xxiii. 
11), the year of Jubilee (Lev. xxvii.), the Pass- 
over (Exod. xii. 6), the feast of tabernacles 
(L,ev. xxiii. 34), etc.; but he is writing 
against the Judaizers who insisted that Chris- 
tians were still subject to the obsolete Mosaic 
law. So he says in the preceding verse, " How 
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele- 
ments, whereunto ye desire again to be in 
bondage ? " 

The Catholic Church has her religious festi- 
vals to continually remind her people of the 
great mysteries of Christianity, and to honor 
our Saviour, His Mother, and the Saints. 



256 



The Question Box. 



It is the same spirit that prompts our coun- 
try to set apart certain days in honor of her 
great events and her illustrious dead, such as 
Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Washington's 
birthday. Will you tell me that it is right for 
an American citizen so to honor Washington 
or Lincoln, and wrong for a Catholic to re- 
member the birthdays of the heroes or saints 
of Christianity? 



ABSTINENCE. 

Why not eat meat on Friday more than on any 
other day? Does not St. Paul call this "the 
doctrine of devils " (I. Tim. iv. 1-3), and Jesus 
say "not that which goeth into the mouth de- 
fileth a man"? (Matt. xv. 11). 

What self-denial is there if one is allowed to 
eat all the fish they want ? 

Catholics abstain from meat on Friday in 
honor of our Saviour's death on that day. St. 
Paul refers to the early Manichean heretics, 
who absolutely condemned the use of meat, 
because they held that all flesh was from an 
evil principle. It is true that the mere eat- 
ing of meat is not sinful, but the deliberate 
disobedience to the Church, which stands in 
the place of Jesus Christ with a real, divine 
power of command, is undoubtedly a grievous 
wrong. Those who " eat all the fish they 



Fasting. 



257 



want" and are gluttonous, may, indeed, ful- 
fil the letter of the law, but not its spirit, 
which insists on mortification in imitation of 
the Saviour. 



FASTING. 
Why do Catholics fast ? 

Because it is one of the precepts of the 
Church. No one at all conversant with Holy 
Scripture can object to fasting. We have the 
example of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 18; xxxiv. 
28 ; Deut. ix. 9, 18), David (II. Kings xii. 16), 
Elias (III. Kings xix. 6), John the Baptist 
(Matt. iii. 4), our Saviour Himself (Matt. iv. 
2), and the Apostles (Acts xiii. 3; xiv. 22). 
Christ tells us how to fast (Matt. vi. 16), and 
foretells that His people will fast after He has 
left them (Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii. 20). Time 
and time again we find seasons of fasting men- 
tioned in both Old Testament and New (II. 
Chron. xx. 3 ; I. Esdras viii. 21 ; II. Esdras 
ix. 1; Esther iv. 16; Joel ii. 15; Jonas iii. 5; 
Acts xxviic 9). 

The object of fasting is to mortify the flesh 
and keep it in subjection to the spirit (I. Cor. 
ix. 27; Luke ix. 23; Gal. v. 24). The glut- 
ton and the drunkard are never spiritual men. 
Fasting conciliates God's mercy and obtains 
the pardon of our sins, prepares the soul for 



258 



The Question Box. 



the special grace of the Holy Spirit (Acts xiii. 
2, 3 ; xiv. 22), casts out evil spirits (Matt. xvii. 
20; Mark ix. 28), reminds us of the bride- 
groom, Christ Jesus (Matt. ix. 15 ; Mark ii. 
20; Luke v. 35. Cf. Tob. xii. 8; Joel ii. 15 ; 
Ps. xxxiv. 13 ; Luke ii. 37 ; II. Cor. vi. 5). 
Mere fasting in itself is not pleasing to God 
(I. Cor. viii. 8), unless we use it as a means 
of penance and mortification for Christ's sake. 

Why do Catholics have Ember days, and what 
are their significance ? 

The Ember days — a corruption of the Latin 
quaiuor iempora — are three days of fasting at 
the beginning of each season, the Wednesday, 
Friday, and Saturday after December 13, the 
first Sunday in Lent, Pentecost, and Septem- 
ber 14. 

Originally the ordinations to the priesthood 
were held on the Saturdays of Ember week, 
and it was deemed fitting that the people 
should fast and pray at such times for the 
clergy. " Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the 
harvest that He send forth laborers into His 
harvest' 9 (Matt. ix. 38) ; so Christ taught His 
people to pray for a good, apostolic priesthood. 
Fasting before ordination was an Apostolic cus- 
tom (Acts xiii. 2, 3). 

What is the meaning of the Lenten observance 
in your Church ? 



Fasting, 



259 



The forty days' fast of L,ent is a custom of 
Christian antiquity mentioned by Tertullian 
(a.d. 99) in his book on fasting, and by Ori- 
gen (a.d. 230) in his homily on I,eviticus, 
N. 2, in memory of our lord's fast of forty 
days before He undertook the work of His 
three years ministry. St. Jerome in the fourth 
century speaks of it as an Apostolic tradi- 
tion : "We fast, the whole world agreeing 
with us, one L,ent, in accordance with the tradi- 
tion of the Apostles" (41 Letter to Marcella). 

Why are women not allowed to be bareheaded 
in a Catholic Church as well as men ? 

Because an Apostolic tradition forbids it (I. 
Cor. xi. 5-1 1 ). " Every woman praying, or pro- 
phesying with her head not covered, disgraceth 
her head, . . . therefore ought the woman 
to have a power (veil, or covering) over her 
head, because of the angels. . . . You 
yourselves judge : doth it become a woman, 
to pray unto God uncovered ? " 

Why do Catholics make the sign of the Cross ? 

Because it is an Apostolic devotional prac- 
tice, and an open profession of their belief in 
the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and 
His death upon the Cross for oui; salvation. 
Many of the early Church writers speak of it 
("Faith of Catholics," vol. iii. p. 422-438). 
Says Tertullian, in the second century: "In 



26o The Question Box, 

all our travels and movements, in all our com- 
ing in and going out, in putting on our 
clothes and shoes, at the bath, at the table, 
in lighting our lamps, in lying down and sit- 
ting down, whatever employment occupies us, 
we mark our forehead with the sign of the 
Cross. For these and such like rules, if thou 
requirest a law in Scriptures, thou shalt find 
none; tradition w T ill be pleaded to thee as 
originating, custom as confirming, and faith 
as observing them " (" De Corona Mil*," 3» 4)- 
We never could understand why Christians 
should be ashamed of that holy symbol, when 
St. Paul tells us the mind of the true lover 
of Christ: " God forbid that I should glory 
save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ ' 1 
(Gal. vi. 14). A great proof that the re- 
formers w r ere not of Christ was the dishonor 
they showed to the symbol of man's salvation. 
It is the same spirit that animated the pagans 
ill China w T hen the test of apostasy was the 
trampling on the Cross. 



SCAPULARS. 

Why do Catholics wear the little brown badge, 
and what is its meaning ? 

Have not Catholics a superstitious reverence 
for the Scapulars, which they consider sure 
charms against all sorts of misfortune? 



Ceremonies. 



261 



! If rightly understood, there is no more super- 
stition in a Catholic wearing the scapular than 
in a soldier wearing his uniform, or a judge of 
the Supreme Court his gown. As part of the 
religious habit of the Carmelites and other or- 
ders, the scapular is a brown broad piece of 
cloth with an opening for the head, which 
hangs down in front and behind almost to the 
ground. The two pieces of square cloth, joined 
with two strings, and worn by the people, is 
a symbol of this. 

' The wearer of the brown scapular belongs 
to the confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Car- 
mel, and shares in all the good works and 
prayers of that order ; undertaking to lead a 
good Christian life, he also professes a special 
devotion to the Mother of God, and places 
himself under her special protection. 



CEREMONIES. 

Why do you Catholics make so much of a 
show in your churches during divine worship ? 

Cannot Christians worship God without so 
much pomp and ceremony ? I deem it supersti- 
tious. 

Why do you have so many silly and meaning- 
less ceremonies ? 

If the ceremonies do appear silly and mean- 
ingless, remember that the trouble is not with 



262 



The Question Box. 



us, but with you who do not understand 
their beautiful symbolism or know their an- 
cient Christian origin. Not a word is said, 
not a gesture made, not an action performed 
in the Catholic Church but has its deep and 
beautiful meaning to the initiated. " Judge 
not according to the appearance,' ' said the 
Lord, "but judge a just judgment " (John 
vii. 24). 

We could, perhaps, worship God without 
ceremony; but only by going contrary to 
human nature, the teaching of the Old and 
New Testament, and the constant practice of 
the Christian people from the very beginning. 

Ceremonial is natural to man. We are not 
disembodied spirits, but creatures made up of 
body and soul. It is a fact that in everything 
else we give expression outwardly to what we 
know and feel interiorly. Why, then, should 
religion be the one exception ? * 

Why should ceremony be the law in things 
humay, viz., in society, in the court-room, in 
the army and navy, 'the lodge, and yet be de- 
barred in things divine ? 

We might say to one of our questioners : 
1 4 Why do we Americans make so much show 
over our love of country Why, for in- 
stance, when Admiral Dewey came to New 
York in October, 1899, fresh with the laurels 
of the victory at Manila^ did . the whole city 



Ceremonies. 



263 



clothe itself in bunting, fly the American flag, 
and our citizens vie with one another to honor 
him and the other heroes of the Spanish Ameri- 
can War, with processions on land and sea, 
fireworks, the playing of patriotic airs? A 
cynic might have remarked : * ' Why make such 
a fuss over men that merely did their duty ? 
The true American answers : ' ! It was to give 
expression to the feeling of patriotism. ,, 

So Catholics, believing with the certainty of 
faith that Jesus Christ is really present upon 
the altar, so that our churches are indeed the 
temples of the living God, wish to give out- 
ward expression to their love of Him. There- 
fore silver, gold, flowers, incense, lighted 
candles, processions, architecture, sculpUtre, 
painting, music— all strive to pay their hom- 
age. 

If it were silly or superstitious, how then' 
do you account for God's sanction of the minu- 
test detail of the Mosaic ritual ? (Exod. xxvi., 
xxviL, xxviii., Num., L,ev.) Our Saviour did 
not disdain to use certain ceremonies ; for in- 
stance, in curing the deaf and dumb man : "He 
put His fingers into his ears, and spitting, He 
touched his tongue, and looking up to heavei 
He said, Ephpheta, which is, be thou opened ' 
(Mark vii. 33, 34); in curing the blind man, 
"He spat on the ground, and made clay of 
the spittle, and spread the clay;, upon his. eyes " 



264 



The Question Box, 



(John ix. 6); prostrating upon the ground in 
the Garden of Gethsemani (Matt. xxvi. 39) ; 
invoking a blessing at the Last Supper (Matt, 
xxvi. 26) ; breathing upon the Apostles (John 
xx. 22). So in the Apostolic Church we find 
the s^brament of orders administered by the 
imposition of hands (I. Tim. iv. 14 ; II. Tim. 
i. 6), and the sacrament of extreme unction by 
the anointing of oil (James v. 14). 

There would indeed be reason to object if 
these outward ceremonies did not give expres- 
sion to internal feelings of reverence and de- 
votion ; if all Catholics were merely like the 
Pharisees of old, who made " clean the outside 
of the cup and of the dish, but within were 
full of rapine and uncleanness " (Matt, xxiii. 
25). We readily grant that an individual 
Catholic may make the sign of the cross or 
genuflect in church before the Blessed Sacra- 
ment mechanically, out of habit, but it is 
totally gratuitous to suppose that the Catholic 
people in their outward ceremonial are merely 
honoring " God with their lips (externally) 
while their hearts are far from Him" (Isa. 
xxix. 13). 

There are to-day many intelligent non- 
Catholics who greatly deplore the ignorance 
and vandalism of the Reformation, which, in 
doing away with the beautiful symbolism of 
the Catholic ritual, deprived men of one of .the 



Ceremonies, 



265 



greatest aids to devotion. Indeed, there has 
been among certain Protestants in our own 
country and England a complete return to the 
old ceremonies of the Catholic Church, dis- 
carded some four hundred years ago. It is 
sad, however, to see them borrow only our 
externals, without having a priesthood for their 
vestments, a sacrifice for their altar appur- 
tenances, or the real presence of Jesus Christ, 
to whose honor all the ceremonial and ritual 
should tend. Strange, too, that frequently the 
very man who objects to what he calls the 
formalism of Catholic ceremonial will gladly 
submit to every detail of the lodge's ritual, 
whether he be a Mason, Oddfellow, or 
Pythian. Deprive man of the reality, and 
sooner or later he will frame for himself a 
counterfeit, to satisfy in some way the heart's 
inner craving for outward ceremonial. Error 
is never consistent. (Bridgett, "The Ritual 
of the New Testament.") 

Why are so many thousands of dollars put 
into the building of churches where there are 
thousands of poor people sadly in need of even 
the necessaries of life ? Should not Christ be 
served in his poor? — An unbeliever, 

A similar objection was made by the traitor 
Judas Iscariot, when Mary Magdalen anointed 
the feet of Jesus with the precious ointment. 



266 



The Question Box. 



" Mary therefore took a pound of ointment 
of right spikenard, of great price, and anoint- 
ed the feet of Jesus. . * . Then one of 
His disciples, Judas Iscariot, . . . said, 
Why was not this ointment sold for three 
hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now 
he said this, not because he cared for the poor, 
but because he was a thief, and having the 
purse, carried the things that were put there- 
in. J \ Our Saviour did not find fault with 
her, however, for He said: "Let her alone, 
that she may keep it against the day of my 
burial. For the poor you have always with 
you, but Me you have not always" (John 
xii. 3-8). 

In the same spirit of love for Jesus Christ 
the Catholic people to-day, as ever, gladly 
spend their hard-earned money that their Lord 
God might have a fitting dwelling place upon 
earth. 

The Jews of the Old Law did not spare gold 
or precious stones in the Temple of Solomon 
(II. Paral. iii. iv.), which was merely a figure 
of the Catholic Church on whose altars Jesus 
Christ was to be really present — the Emmanuel 
—God with us. 

The Catholic Church has ever been pre-emi- 
nently the Church of the poor, the Catholic 
priest ever their truest friend, as the universal 
love of the poor for him abundantly proves. 



Devout Practices. 



267 



Her principles of justice set forth clearly the 
duty of capital to provide a just, living wage 
for the workingman, and charity is written 
large on the page of her history from the 
beginning (Leo XIII., "On the Condition of 
Labor"). 

The money spent in church-building is well 
spent, for it means a practical, substantial 
proof of the true faith in Christ and the love 
for Him and the brethren, which otherwise 
would disappear before the inroads of our 
modern paganism. Every Catholic church 
means a new home where the poor are ever wel- 
come, to be cared for spiritually, and materially 
if need be, by those who remember Christ's 
words: "As long as you did it to one of 
these my least brethren, you did it to Me" 
(Matt. xxv. 40). 

I wonder how many dollars our unbelieving 
friend devotes annually to charity. 



DEVOUT PRACTICES. 

Why do you burn fragrant spices during your 
services ? 

Incense, according to the Old Testament and 
the New, is symbolic of prayer. "Let my 
prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in thy 
sight" (Ps. cxl. 2). "And golden vials full 
of odors, which are the prayers of saints" 



268 



The Question Box. 



(Apoc. v. 8). " Another angel came and 
stood before the altar, having a golden censer ; 
and there was given him much incense, that 
he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon 
the golden altar, which is before the throne 
of God" (Apoc. viii. 3). The burning of in- 
cense before the altar was part of the pre- 
scribed ceremonial of the Old Law. "And 
Aaron shall burn sweet smelling incense upon 
it (the altar) in the morning " (Exod. xxx. 7; 
cf. xxv. 6 ; xxx. 23 ; Lev. xvi. 13 ; Num. xvi. 
46). In the Church of God it is used at 
High Mass, Vespers, and Benediction of the 
Most Blessed Sacrament. 

Why do Catholics sprinkle themselves on enter- 
ing the church? What warranty in the Bible 
for the use of holy water ? Is not this a super- 
stitious practice ? 

Catholics use holy water because they be- 
lieve that the prayers of the Church in bless- 
ing it are efficacious to excite in the well dis- 
posed acts of faith, hope, and love in Christ 
Jesus, and to drive forth the evil one through 
the exorcisms of those vested with divine 
authority. St. Paul tells us : " Every creature 
of God is good, . . . fbr it is sanctified 
by the word of God and prayer" (I. Tim, 
iv. 4, 5). 

If it were superstitious, how then do you 



Devout Practices. 269 



account for the miracles wrought at the pool 
of Bethsaida ? (John v. 2-4). How explain 
the use of holy water by God's commandment 
in the Old Law? — viz., ' ' Aaron and his son 
shall wash their hands and feet in it (a 
brazen laver), when they are going into the 
tabernacle" (Exod. xxx. 19, 20); "And he 
shall take holy water in an earthen vessel* I 
(Num. v. 17) ; " Let them be sprinkled with 
the water of purification " (Num. viii. 7; cf. 
Exod. xix. 10-14; Lev. viii. 6; IV. Kings, 
V. 10). 

Moreover we know that holy water was used 
as early as the second century ("Apostolical 
Constitution," book viii. eh. 29), and in the 
catacombs of Rome (Rock, m Hierurgia," vol. 
ii. ch. xiii. p. 258). It is symbolic of the 
purity of heart with which Christians ought 
to appear before the altar of Jesus Christ. 
(Lambing, " Sacramentals of the Church/ f ch. 
viii.; Rock, " Hierurgia," vol. ii. ch. xiii. p, 
258.) 

Why do you use candles in your Church in the 
day-time ? 

Why are candles used in the sick-room, or 
around the body of the dead? 

Historically, the use of candles on the altar 
during Mass bears witness to the days of per- 
secution, when the early Christiana heard Mass 



270 The Question Box. 

in the darkness of the catacombs under the 
city of Rome. 

Symbolicall)', they bring before the Catho- 
lic people Jesus Christ, "the Light of the 
World,' ' " the True Light which enlighteneth 
every man that cometh into this world " (John 
i. 9, mix. 12), and tell them with the Saviour 
that their faith should be manifested before 
men and burn brightly in the performance of 
good works. "So let your light shine before 
men, that they may see your good works, and 
glorify your Father who is in heaven ' 9 (Matt, 
v. 16). 

Why do Catholic priests wear such peculiar 
clothes during services ? 

The vestments worn by the priest at Mass 
mark him a man apart from the world, as in 
the Old Law : " And these shall be the vest- 
ments which they shall make : a rational and 
an ephod, a tunic and a straight linen garment, 
a mitre and a girdle. They shall make the 
holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his 
sons, that they may do the office of the priest- 
hood unto me" (Exod. xxviii. 4). 

Symbolically, they call to mind some detail 
of our Lord's Passion, for the Mass daily : 
"shows forth the death of the Lord until He 
come ,> (I. Cor. xi. 26), ; The amice, a linen 
covering of the priest's head and shoulders, is 



Devout Practices. 



271 



symbolic of the linen scarf placed over our 
Lord's eyes (Luke xxii. 64) ; the alb, the long 
linen garment of the priest, of the white gar- 
ment wherewith Herod in mockery clothed 
Him (Luke xxiii. 11) ; the ct?icture and stole , of 
the cords with which He was bound (John 
xviii. 12, 24); the chasuble, of the purple gar- 
ment the soldiers gave Him (Mark xv. 17). 
The different colors of the vestments worn at 
different seasons of the year and on different 
feast days are also symbolic— white of inno- 
cence, red of martyrdom, purple of penance, 
green of hope, and black of mourning. 

These vestments naturally seem peculiar to 
the eye of the twentieth century, for they all 
date back to Roman days — none of them being 
later than the eighth century. In the same 
way the dress of the Oriental to-day is strange 
to us, as our collars, cuffs, and trousers are 
extraordinary to him. 

Why do Catholics wear medals? Are they 
not similar to the superstitious amulets of the 
pagan to prevent disease, ward off danger, etc.? 

On the contrary, there is no more supersti- 
tion in the wearing of a blessed medal, 
stamped with the impression of our Lord, 
the Blessed Virgin, or one of the saints, than 
there is in a boy or girl wearing a locket con- 
taining, a mother's picture. They, are .not 



272 



The Question Box, 



charms, but reminders of Christ's love for us, 
or of the perfect sanctity of His saints. 

What is an Agnus Dei? 

It is a little emblem of blessed wax, enclosed 
in a silken covering, worn by Catholics to re- 
mind them of Jesus Christ, " the Lamb of God ? 
who taketh away the sins of the world 
(John i. 29). 

Why are ashes placed on the foreheads of 
Catholics the first day of Lent? 

To make us realize the thought of death, the 
priest repeating the words of God to Adam, 44 foi 
dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return " 
(Gen. iii. 19). Ashes in the Old Law were 
always symbolic of penance, the characteristic 
virtue of the season of Lent (Job xlii. 6 ; Jonas 
iii. 6 ; Isa. lviii. 5, etc.) 

Why do you bless palm-branches in your 
Church a week before Easter? 

They tell the Catholic people of Christ's 
triumphal entry into the Holy City on the first 
Palm Sunday. " And others cut down boughs 
from the trees, and strewed them in the way ,s 
(Mark xi. 8). 

Why do you baptize church bells? 

Bells are not baptized, for only rational 



Devout Practices. 



273 



creatures are fit subjects for Christ's baptism. 
They are merely blessed, as are many other 
inanimate objects, with a special prayer pre- 
scribed by the liturgy. The Bible authority 
for this is I. Tim. iv. 4-5: " Every creature 
« . . is sanctified by the word of God 
and prayer.' ' 

What is the meaning of the Forty Hours' De- 
votion ? 

It is a special time of devotion in which 
the Catholic people gather in great numbers 
to visit and adore Jesus Christ in the Blessed 
Sacrament, to attend Mass and receive Holy 
Communion. The worship of Jesus in the 
Eucharist is the primary devotion of the Catho- 
lic Church, before which all the other devotions 
pale as the stars at the coming of dawn. 

What is the Vesper service in your Church ? 

It is a part of the divine office which every 
priest is bound to say daily for the glory of 
God and the good of the Universal Church. 
It is made up of five psalms, which vary 
according to different feasts (generally Pss. 109- 
113), a hymn, the Magnificat (Luke i. 46-55), 
and some prayers. In the convents of the old 
religi<. us orders the entire office is sung every 
day (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Tierce, Sext, 
None. Vespers, and Compline), but because of 



274 



The Question Box, 



its great length only Vespers is sung in the 
Catholic churches of to-day, in accordance 
with the practice of primitive Christianity: 
M speaking to yourselves in psalm's, and hymns, 
and spiritual canticles, singing and making 
melody in your hearts to the Lord rj (Eph. v. 
19 ; Col. iii . 16). 



SAINT PETER IN ROME. 

What particle of proof have we that Peter was 
ever in Rome ? 

It has been denied, under the stress of con- 
troversy, that St. Peter was ever in Rome, and 
this false statement is still repeated without 
hesitancy by many who have never studied 
the question. The best answer to this query- 
is to cite the many fair-minded non- Catholic 
scholars who admit the fact as beyond all ques- 
tion; viz., Grotius, Cave, Gardner, Whitby, 
Macknight, Hales, Cludius, Mynster, Schaff, 
Neander, Steiger, DeWette, Wieseler, Cred- 
ner, Bleck, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Renan, Man- 
gold. 

' 'That Peter was at Rome," says Cave, 
* ' and held the see there for some time, we 
fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of 
the ancients. ,, (" Scriptorum Eccles. His- 
toria Iyiteraria," vel. i. p. 5, cited by L,ivius ; 
"St. Peter, Bishop of Rome/' p. 442.) 



Saint Peter in Rome. 



275 



Dr. Gardner writes : " It is the general, un- 
contradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient 
writers in the several parts of the world 
— Greeks, Latins, Syrians' ' ("Hist, of the 
Apost. and Evang.," ch. xviii.; cited by Al- 
natt, Catholic Truth Society publications). 

Pearson declares : " Since it has been hand- 
ed down from almost the beginning that St. 
Peter preached the gospel in Rome, and there 
suffered martyrdom, and since no one has ever 
affirmed that either Peter or Paul was crowned 
with martyrdom elsewhere, I think, with full 
security, faith may be given to this account. 
(Minor Theological Works, vol. iii. p, 341.) 
. Whiston, the translator of the works of 
Josephus, says : " That St. Peter was at Rome 
is so clear in Christian antiquity that it is a 
shame for any Protestant to confess that any 
Protestant ever denied it " (Memoirs, London, 
i75o). 

The universally received interpretation of I. 
Pet. v. 13, "the Church that is in Babylon 
saluteth you," declares that Babylon means 
Rome, from which city St. Peter wrote his 
Epistle. The " Speaker's Commentary " (Prot- 
estant) says : " We find an absolute consensus 
of ancient interpreters that there Babylon must 
be understood as equivalent to Rome." (Cf. 
also Bishop Ellicott's Commentary ; cited by 
Wvius, p. 453-454.) 



276 



The Question Box. 



One of the greatest proofs, perhaps, is the 
fact that although the Protestant scholar 
Lipsius spent his entire life endeavoring to 
disprove this evident historical fact, the world 
of scholars is unmoved by his arguments. 
(Cf. Hilgenfeld's " Zeitschrift," 1877, pp. 486* 
508.) 

What proofs have you for the Roman episco- 
pate of the Apostle Peter ? 

To one eager to study this question I would 
earnestly recommend Father Livius' book on 
this subject: "St. Peter, Bishop of Rome" 
(London : Burns & Oates, 1888), or the little 
leaflet of the London Catholic Truth Society 
by C. F, Alnatt. 

* \ Regarded simply as an event of past his- 
tory, St. Peter's Roman episcopate, like other 
such events, is a matter of historical evidence. 
If judged by this test alone, we claim for it 
a more ample and precise verification than 
usually obtains for most of those events which 
learned, impartial criticism has pronounced to 
be historically true \ \ (Livius, Introd. p. xi.) 

jvT? The Roman episcopate of St. Peter was 
never questioned, even by heretics or schis- 
matics, until the thirteenth century. Indeed, 
until the Reformation it was the universal per- 
suasion of the Christian people that from his 
see the constitution and authority of the 



Saint Peter in Rome. 



277 



Church were derived. It is rather puerile 
to deny such a fact, in view of the demands 
of controversy " (pp. 4, 193-197). 

2. The testimony of the Fathers of the first 
four centuries — men eminent for their learn- 
ing and sanctity — is given, p. 11-36. 

3. As everybody well knows, the memory 
of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul has from 
the earliest times till now been inseparably 
associated with many places, buildings, and 
other material objects in Rome ; amongst these, 
the dungeons in which they were imprisoned, 
the chains of St. Peter, the place of his martyr- 
dom, and the tombs of the Apostles have ever 
been the most celebrated. Moreover, not a 
few churches in the very earliest times were 
built in some of the more famous places, where 
either the Apostles themselves, or their dis- 
ciples, such as St. Pudens and his family, 
Aquila and Priscilla, and others, were used 
to reside. And here, too, we may mention the 
feast of the chair of St. Peter, as well as the 
material chair itself of the Apostle, which is 
preserved in Rome until the present day " 
(p. 38, 105-187). 

4. It is a striking fact that none of the 
Eastern schismatics who broke away from 
Rome in the early days ever denied the Ro- 
man episcopate of St. Peter, although it would 
have proved one of the strongest justifications 



278 



The Question Box. 



of their schism (p. 17 et seq., p. 57, pp. 193 
et seq., 288, 349 et seq., 378 et seq.) 

5. The many objections brought forward 
since the Reformation by non-Catholic con- 
troversialists are ably answered by Father 
Ijvius, viz., the silence of the Acts and the 
Epistles of St. Paul (pp. 50-56), the mean- 
ing of Babylon in I. Pet. v. 13 (pp. 56-59), 
the rationalistic theory (pp. 63-65 ; cf. pp. 113, 
129, 178-181, 193, 196, 201, 206, 235, 241 et 
seq., 272-275, 294, 298 et seq., 323, 337 et seq., 
390-392, 424, 438 et seq., 445, 459 et seq., 465 
et seq., 511-519). 



THE PAPAL AUTHORITY. 

Is not the ruling power of the Roman Popes a 
usurpation ? 

Where does the Bible declare that Jesus ap- 
pointed a Pope ? 

What proof does Scripture give that Peter had 
any authority over the other disciples ? 

Were not all the Apostles equal ? 

Did not Jesus give to all the power of binding 
and loosing (Matt, xviii. 18). 

Matt. xvi. 18, 19: "Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my Church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
And I will give to thee the keys of the king- 
dom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt 



The Papal Authority. 279 



bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. " 

Luke xxii. 31-32 : " Simon, Simon, behold 
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may 
sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, 
that thy faith fail not ; and thou being once 
converted, confirm thy brethren/ 9 

John xxi. 15-17 : " Jesus saith to Simon 
Peter : Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me 
more than these ? He said to Him : Yea, 
Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He 
saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to 
him again : Simon, son of John, lovest thou 
Me ? He said to Him : Yea, Lord, thou know- 
est that I love Thee. He saith to him : Feed 
my lambs. He saith to him the third time : 
Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter 
was grieved because He had said to him the 
third time : Lovest thou Me ? And he said to 
Him : Lord, thou knowest all things ; Thou 
knowest that I love Thee. He said to him : 
Feed my sheep," 

A careful study of all these words clearly 
proves that St. Peter held a unique place 
among the twelve Apostles, and that Jesus 
Christ made him His vicar and representative 
on earth. 

1. Jesus Christ the Rock (I. Cor. x. 4 ; 
Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 11 ; Kph. ii. 20-22 ; I. 



280 



The Question Box. 



Pet. ii. 6) promised to make Peter the rock- 
foundation ot the Church in association with 
Himself (Matt. xvi. 18). The foundation of 
a building gives it unity, strength, and stabil- 
ity (Matt. vii. 24, 25) ; so the Church built on 
Peter is, through him, to be kept for ever 
strong and united in government and in doc- 
trine. 

2. Christ the Key-bearer (Apoc. iii. 7) prom- 
ises to make Peter Key-bearer in His king- 
dom ; that is, to have complete power and juris- 
diction in the Church. 

3. In Luke xxii. Christ prays for Peter 
that his faith ever remain strong and pure tc 
strengthen the faith of the wavering and 
doubting brethren. 

4. Christ the Good Shepherd (John x. 11) 
plainly gives to Peter His own full power as 
Shepherd (John xxi. 15). 

All the Apostles were commissioned in com- 
mon to establish the Church, to preach the gos- 
pel, to baptize (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), to forgive 
sins (John xx. 23), to say Mass (Luke xxii. 19), 
etc.; but Peter alone was made the Rock, the 
Key-bearer, the Confirmer of the brethren, and 
the Shepherd of the flock. This has ever been 
the witness ot Catholic tradition. (See "A 
Manual of Catholic Theology/ ' vol. ii. p. 316- 
327; " Faith of Catholics, V vol. ii. pp. 1-59). 

Indeed, our Lord indicated the pre-eminence 



The Papal Authority. 281 



of St. Peter by the promised change of name 
at their first meeting: "Thou art Simon the 
son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas, 
which is interpreted Peter M (John i. 42). 
Throughout the New Testament his name is 
given first (Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; L,uke 
vi. 14; Acts i. 13); and he is treated as 
the leader of the twelve (Matt. xvii. 23-26; 
xxvi. 37-40; Mark v. 37 ; xvi. 7 ; L,uke v. 2- 
10 ; ix. 20, etc.) He presides at the elec- 
tion of Matthias (Acts i. 15) ; he is the first 
preacher of the Gospel and the first converter 
of the gentiles (Acts ii. 14 et seq., x. 9 et seq.); 
he is the first to work miracles (Acts iii. 
6) ; he condemns the guilty Ananias and 
Saphira (Acts v. 1-10) ; the Church prays un- 
ceasingly for his release from prison (xii. i~ 
15); he settles the dispute at the first Coun- 
cil of Jerusalem (xv. 7-12) ; he is visited by 
St. Paul (Gal. i. 18, 19, etc.) 

The exercise of Papal supremacy, and the 
strong steady witness to it in the pages of 
Christian history, may be studied in many 
volumes which treat this subject at great 
length. (Livius, 1 ' St. Peter, Bishop of Rome " ; 
Allies, " St. Peter, His Name and His Office/ ' 
"The See of Peter," "Church and State," 
"The Throne of the Fisherman"; Riving ton, 
u Authority — Dependence," " The Primitive 
Church and the See of Peter " ; Allnatt, 



282 The Question Box. 

V Cathedra Petri"; Kenrick, "The Primacy 
of the Apostolic See"; Smith, 4 * Papal Su- 
premacy and Infallibility," Catholic Truth So- 
ciety publications ; Hettinger \ i { The Supre- 
macy of the Apostolic See." 

Is it probable that such a power, recognized 
to-day by the vast majority of the Christian 
people, is a usurpation ? It was in possession 
at the time of the Reformation, and no valid 
argument has ever been produced to in- 
validate the Catholic claim. Is it probable 
* * that many various nations w T ill agree that the 
head of their religion should be external to 
themselves ? Will the members of these vari- 
ous and zealous nations, who are equal in their 
episcopal power, allow a brother to arrange 
their precedence, control their actions, ter- 
minate their disputes, rule them as one flock, 
and that for fifteen centuries together ? " (" See 
of Peter," p. 87). 



IS CHRIST THE ROCK ? 

Does not the rock (Matt. xvi. 18) mean Christ ? 

The word rock refers to St. Peter, as many 
Protestant commentators of the passage have 
admitted, v. g. y Weiss, Keil, Mansel, Bloom- 
field, Marsh, Thompson, Alford, Rosenmuller, 
etc. Thompson, of Glasgow', in his Mdnatesseron 
says (p. 194) : " Peter was the rock on which 



Is Christ the Rock? 283 

Christ said his Church should be built. To 
this the connection and scope of the passage 
agree. There seems to be something forced in 
every other construction. . . . Protestants 
have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have 
therefore used all the hardihood of lawless 
criticism in their attempts to reason away the 
Catholic interpretation." 

Does not the use of the two different words, 
petros and petra, in Matt. xvi. 18 prove that 
Peter and rock are not identical ? 

This argument is obsolete to-da}^, for the 
study of Syriac in the past century has told us 
that in the vernacular of Palestine in our 
Lord's time Syriac was the language used, 
and in that version of the Scriptures (the Pesh- 
ito) the same word is employed for Peter and 
rock, thus: " Thou art Kepha^ and upon this 
Kepha I will build My Church/ * Thus scholar- 
ship again robs the old-time controversialist 
of one of his pet arguments against the Pri- 
macy. 

If Christ is the Supreme Head of the Church, 
what need is there of the Pope ? Is it not 
derogatory to Christ to have a mere man at the 
head of His Church ? 

The will of Christ was to establish His 
Church as a visible society in the world, and, 



284 



The Question Box. 



to prevent anarchy in doctrine and govern- 
ment, He chose a central authority on earth to 
represent His divine authority. God seldom 
acts directly, but uses human agencies as the 
ministers of His will. The Primacy is a ques- 
tion of fact to be learned from a study of 
Scripture and history. 

The supremacy of the Popes is no more 
derogatory to Christ than the supremacy of 
the high-priest under the Old Law to the 
authority of God. A visible church needs a 
local government upon earth according to the 
divine plan. The authority of Christ can be 
vested in a man, to rule His Church, just as 
the truth and the grace of Christ can be given 
men through the ministry of human agents. 

Is not Christ called the only foundation of the 
Church? "For other foundation can no man 
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ " (L 
Cor. iii. n). 

Is not Christ called the rock, the stone, etc., in 
the Bible ? " This is the stone which was set at 
naught by the builders," etc. (Acts iv. n); 
"And that rock was Christ " (I. Cor. x. 4). 

Catholics do not claim that Peter is the 
head of the Church independently of Christ, 
which indeed would be blasphemy ; but that he 
is the visible head on earth, representing the 
chief and invisible Head, Christ Jesus in 



Is Christ the Rock? 



28$ 



heaven, He is the rock whereon Christ, the 
Divine Builder, has built His Church, that 
from His divinely given strength the Church 
might ever be kept one, firm and strong. 
Christ, as the rock primarily, could make Peter 
rock also, even as Christ, as chief Shepherd 
(John x. 11), could make Peter shepherd 
of the flock after he had gone (John xxi. 15). 

Fair-minded Protestant commentators have 
granted that the expression rock, or founda- 
tion, may be applied to either Christ or St 4 
Peter, " since the two expressions are em- 
ployed in two very different senses" (Bloom- 
field in Matt. xvi. 18). 

Indeed, we find the word foundation applied 
even to the Apostles and the prophets in Eph. 
ii. 20, and surely they were not foundations in 
the same sense as Christ. The meaning of I. 
Cor. iii. 11 is plain : the Apostle declares that 
our L,ord is the only one in whom our hope of 
salvation should rest, for 1 • there is no other 
name under heaven given to man whereby we 
must be saved" (Acts iv. 12). 

In Acts iv. 11 St. Peter tells the Jews that 
the Messias whom they rejected is now glori- 
fied, even as the rejected stone is afterwards 
given by the builders a prominent place in the 
building. How any of these texts contradict 
Matt. xvi. we fail to understand. 



286 



The Question Box. 



Are not all the Apostles equal ? For we read 
in Eph. ii. 20 that the Church was built upon 
them all; " built upon the foundation of the 
Apostles and Prophets'' (cf. Apoc. xxi. 14). 

The Church is indeed built upon all the 
Apostles and Prophets, but not in the same 
manner, for surely the prophets were not teach- 
ers of Christ in the same sense as the Apostles. 
The United States is built upon the judiciary, 
legislature, and executive. Does that make all 
these three branches of the government similar 
in function, and prove that Mr. Roosevelt is 
not the President of our country ? 

If the Apostles knew that Peter was their 
head, why then did they dispute as to who was 
the greatest? (Luke xxii. 24). 

Even suppose that before the descent of the 
Holy Spirit (Acts ii.) the Apostles were doubt- 
ful of the primacy of St. Peter; they were also 
ignorant of the passion and resurrection of the 
Saviour, although he had frequently prophesied 
it (L,uke ix. 45 ; xviii. 34 ; xxiv. 25 ; Matt, 
xx. 17-19). 

Our Lord could have ended the dispute at 
once by declaring that there would be no 
chief or ' \ greatest " apostle in His kingdom, 
if that were the fact. On the contrary, He im- 
plies by His comparison that there will be a 
ruler among them, although his character 



Is Christ the Rock? 



should be child-like and humble, as distinct 
from the pagan princes of the time. I quote 
the Protestant version: "The kings of the 
gentiles exercise lordship over them : and they 
that exercise authority upon them are called 
benefactors. But ye shall not be so (i.e. t 
proud); but he that is greatest among you y let 
him be as the younger ; and he that is chief, as 
he that doth serve" (Luke xxii. 25-26). He 
then, moreover, cites His own example — surely 
not to deny His headship, but to give them a 
divine example of humility. "I am among 
you as he that serveth'' (v. 27), an allusion 
to his having washed their feet as a slave 
(John xiii. 5). 

And finally, in verse 32, he actually promises 
that St. Peter shall be the chief Apostle to con- 
firm the faith of the wavering brethren : ?•? I 
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not ; 
and thou, being once converted, confirm thy 
brethren. 1 ' 

Is not the fact that the Apostles sent St< 
Peter and St. John to confirm the Samaritans 
proof positive that he exercised no supreme 
power over the other Apostles ? (Acts viii. 14). 

Not at all. V For although St. Luke men- 
tions Peter and John, he sets Peter first; and 
in his record of what happened to Simon, John 
acts the second part, and it is Peter alone who 



288 



The Question Box. 



teaches, commands, judges, and condemns 
with authority, as the head and supreme ruler M 
{cf. Acts viii. 19-23 ; Allies, " St. Peter, His 
Name and His Office," pp. 164-166). 

Besides, Josephus tells us that in the reign 
of Nero the Jews sent ten legates of their 
princes, their high-priest, Ishmael, and an- 
other Jewish priest. We see, therefore, that 
there is nothing incredible in two persons of 
unequal rank being sent on a joint mission in 
those times (Rivington, preface to Allies' " St. 
Peter," p. ix.) 

Did Peter act as Po^e in the Council of Jeru- 
salem ? (Acts xv.) If so, why did James preside, 
and give the definitive sentence ? 

There is no proof that the Apostle James pre- 
sided at the Council of Jerusalem, or that he de- 
cided any question whatsoever. The Greek 
word Krino, " I judge " (xv. 19), or M I am of 
the opinion,' ' does not imply an authoritative 
decision. On the contrary, we notice that the 
dispute over circumcision which was carried 
on first in Antioch, and renewed again at the 
Council, ceased when Peter arose, declared how 
he had been chosen to announce the gospel to 
the gentiles, and rebuked those who were in- 
sisting on the observances of the Old I^aw. 
" And all the multitude held their peace.' ' 
Whoever rises to speak after this merely 



Is Christ the Rock? 289 



confirms what St. Peter said by narrating the 
miracles. wrought among the gentiles, as did 
St. Paul and Barnabas, or citing the pro- 
phets, and suggesting a practical remedy of 
settling the dispute, as did St. James. 

Why is it that Paul makes no mention of the 
Pope when he speaks of the various offices in 
the Church ? (1. Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11). 

Because it is not the purpose of St. Paul to 
describe the hierarchy, but to show that as in 
the body there are different members, so in 
Christ's body, the Church, there are different 
offices— apostles, prophets, doctors, etc. You 
could not argue that because the Council of 
Trent declares the hierarchy to consist of 
bishops, priests, and deacons, without special 
mention of the Pope, it thereby denies his 
primacy. Besides, conditions were vastly dif- 
ferent in x\postolic times, for the Catholic 
Church teaches that each Apostle was in- 
fallible with and under the Pope, while to-day 
the plenitude of Apostolic power of teaching 
and ruling resides only in the Bishop of Rome. 

Did Paul acknowledge Pet*r as his superior 
when he " withstood him to the face " ? (Gal. ii. 
11-14). 

This rebuke of St. Peter by St. Paul cannot 
logically be brought forward as an argument 



290 



The Question Box. 



against the Primacy, unless it be first proved 
that it is always unlawful for an inferior to cor- 
rect a superior. But this is not the teaching of 
Christianity (Matt, xviii. 15). To reprehend 
one's superior in defence of justice and of truth, 
firmly though with due deference to his author- 
ity, may sometimes be an imperative duty. 
There are several instances in the history of 
the Church where holy men and women, like 
St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and 
St. Catherine of Siena, have rebuked Popes 
while fully acknowledging their authority. 

St. Alphonsus thus answers this objection 
(" Verita della Fede, ,, p. iii. c. vii. 12): " As 
to the reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul, 
. . . some, as St. Jerome (Com. in Gal. ii. 
11), answer that this dispute was preconcerted 
purposely to tranquillize the Jews ; but others, 
with St. Augustine (Epistle 82 n. 22), St. Cyp- 
rian (Ad. Quint., ep. 71), St. Gregory (Sup. 
Ezech,, Horn. 18), St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 33, 
a. 4 ad 2), and St. Jerome himself (Adv. 
Pelag., lib. i. 1), when he afterwards retracted, 
say more commonly, and with greater probabil- 
ity, that these words were a real reprehension, 
but that there w r as no question of doctrine in- 
volved ; viz., as to whether, under the Evan- 
gelical law, the legal observances of the Jews 
were to be still maintained. St. Peter was 
well aware that these observances were to be 



. Is Christ the Rock? 291 

abolished; nay more, before this— when St. 
Paul brought tidings of what the converted 
Jews were doing at Antioch, and how they 
w r ould have the gentiles who believed to be 
circumcised — it w 7 as St. Peter who severely 
blamed such a pretension, saying : - Now, there- 
fore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon 
the necks of the disciples, w'hich neither our 
fathers nor we have been able to bear ? , (Acts 
xv. 10). But in this case the question was 
one only of a point of discipline and expedi- 
ence ; that is, w T hether or not it was then fit- 
ting and expedient to wholly abolish the 
Mosaic Law. For though it was already dead, 
it had not yet become deadly to those who 
observed it (cf. Acts xvi. 3, where St. Paul 
has Timothy circumcised). ... It w r as 
with good reason, however, that St. Paul after- 
wards blamed St. Peter, w T hen, from fear of 
displeasing the Jewish converts, he separated 
from the gentiles, who did not observe the 
Mosaic Law: for at that time it was of more 
importance not to shock the gentile believers, 
who were many, than not to displease the Jew- 
ish converts, who were few in number, and ought 
to have had no reasonable grounds for scandal 
because the uncircumcised did not follow'their 
customs. " (Livius, "St. Peter, Bishop of 
Rome," pp. 334-348, who also cites Dollinger, 
M First Age of the Church," vol. i. pp. 79-105,; 



20)2 



The Question Box. 



THE PRIMACY OF THE POPES. 

Did not Pope Gregory the Great repudiate the 
title of Universal Bishop? 

Pope Gregory tells us that he rejected the 
title because he took it to involve a claim of 
being the one only bishop (lib. v. epis. 21, 
ad Const. Aug.) When John the Faster, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, proudly called 
himself "Ecumenical Bishop," Gregory to re- 
buke him humbly called himself 4 ' the servant 
of the servants of God " (servus servorum Dei) 
—a title which has always been retained by his 
successors. He by no means denies his uni- 
versal jurisdiction; for, with regard to Con- 
stantinople, he writes: "As to what they say 
of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts 
that it is subject to the Apostolic See ? This is 
constantly owmed by the most pious Emperor, 
and by our brother the Bishop of that city" 
{lib. ix. ep. 12). And again: "It is evident 
t;o all acquainted with the gospel, that by our 
lord's words the care of the whole Church 
was committed to St. Peter, Apostle, and prince 
of all the Apostles " : John xxi. 17 ; I^uke xxii. 
32 ; Matt. xvi. 17-19 (lib. v. ep. xx.; Ryder, 
c 1 Catholic Controversy. ' ' ) 

By what right did Alexander VI. divide the 
♦Spanish and Portuguese possessions in the New 



The Primacy ef the Popes. 293 



World ? Was not that an unwarranted assump- 
tion of power ? 

Alexander VI. merely did what international 
treaties or congresses do to-day ; that is, regu- 
late the rights of different nations so as to 
avoid as far as possible the danger of war. At 
the date of the Bull " Inter Caetera M (May 4, 
1493) all the European nations acknowledged 
Rome — the centre of Christendom — as the Su- 
preme Court of international law. Relations 
between Spain and Portugal were strained at 
the time, so that war was imminent, threaten- 
ing to prevent the peaceful explorations of the 
New World, and the preaching of the gos- 
pel to the heathen. The Bull did not, as 
some pretend, confer upon the two kings 
lands which the Pope owned or pretended to 
own, but only marked out the limits in which 
the two nations could operate without danger 
of conflict. As a matter of fact, by thus pre- 
venting war between the two countries, Alex- 
ander VI. helped the opening up of America 
{Amer, Cath. Quarterly , vol. iii. p. 338-340), 

Was there not at one time (A. D 855-857) a 
female Pope ? 

No ; this fable is rejected by Protest* 
ant and infidel scholars; e. g. y Blondel, Leib- 
nitz, Gibbon, Bayle, Casaubon, Jurien, Bas- 
cage, Burnet, Cave, Gabler, Moaheim, Giese* 



294 The Question Box, 

Jer, Shrockl, Neander, etc. Indeed, as Bene- 
dict III. (September 29, 855) immediately 
succeeded Leo IV. (July 17, 855), there was 
no interval left for the alleged two years' reign 
of the Popess Joan (Gibbon, "Decline and 
Fall," ch. xlix.) The subject is exhaustively 
treated by Dollinger, " Papal Fables, " p. 1-45. 

Did not the Popes forge a number of docu- 
ments, now known as the False Decretals, to es- 
tablish their monstrous claim of universal do- 
minion ? 

It has been conclusively proved, by both 
Catholic and Protestant critics, that the "False 
Decretals" did not originate in Rome, but in 
Western France, about a.d. 845-857. The 
forgeries in the collection were not compiled in 
the interests of the Popes at all, but directly 
to restrict the power of the metropolitans, and 
relieve the bishops from oppression by the 
secular power. This is admitted by Prot- 
estant scholars, as Splitter, Knust, Vasser- 
schleben, Walter, and Moehler. 

i 'In fact, there is not a single prerogative 
or privilege of Rome asserted in the False 
Decretals which was not generally recognized 
as the common law of the Christian Church. 
They changed nothing, altered nothing, added 
nothing ; at most they only put into convenient 
shape what was before less easy of access. 



The Primacy of the Popes. 295 



and so helped to popularize a doctrine which 
was sometimes forgotten by local prelates, and 
to keep before their minds that dependence on 
the Holy See which is the central doctrine of 
Catholic ecclesiastical discipline" (Rev. R. F. 
Clarke, S.J., Historical Papers, p. 44, Catholic 
Truth Society publications). Catholic critics 
like Cardinal de Cusa, the Ballerini, Bellarmin, 
and Baronius proved long ago that these docu- 
ments were forgeries. The Popes saw them 
disappear with perfect equanimity, for their 
power rested not on them, but on the words 
of Christ. 

What became of the Papal succession at the 
time of the great Western Schism (A.D, 1378- 
1417). 

Were there not at one time three men, each 
claiming to be the real Pope ? 

How can you claim your Church was always 
one, when for forty years it was destroyed by 
the Western Schism? 

The Papal line was in no way broken by 
the great Western Schism, for there was 
always a true Pope ; it seems historically 
most probable that Urban VI. was the validly 
elected Pope, April 9, 1378. So, after care- 
ful consideration, think many Catholic (Hefele, 
Papencordt, Hergenrother, Heinrich) and non- 
Catholic historians (X*eo, Hinschius, Siebe-. 



2g6 The Question Box, 

king, I/Indner, Gregorovius, Erler; cf. Pastor, 
1 ! History of the Popes," vol. i. p. 102). In that 
case his successors during the schism, Boni- 
face IX., Innocent VII., Gregory XII., 
formed the direct line of legitimate Popes, and 
the others, Clement VII., Benedict XIII., 
Alexander V., John XXIII., were merely anti« 
popes. 

We must remember, too, ' * that the schism 
was not a schism in the ordinary sense of 
the term. For by schism is ordinarily meant 
withdrawal of obedience from one who is known 
to be the unquestionably legitimate Roman 
Pontiff. It is quite possible and likely that 
the authors of the mischief, whom we cannot 
but identify with the cardinals who withdrew 
from Urban after electing him, were schis- 
matics in the true sense. But the name is 
not truly applicable to the vast number 
of prelates and Christian people who, amidst 
so many conflicting testimonies, were utterly 
unable to discover which was the true Pontiff. 
They were not schismatics, because they ac- 
knowledged the Papal authority, did their best 
to discover who was its true living incumbent, 
and were prepared to submit at once when 
the discovery was made. 

14 There was, moreover, a true Pope all the 
time, for the fact that this truth was involved 
ist doubt did sot make it less a truth ; and 



The Primacy of the Popes, 297 



this true Pope was a true fountain of authority 
and a true centre of unity to all the world" 
(Rev. Sydney Smith, S.J., " The Great Schism 
of the West/' Catholic Truth Society publi- 
cations). The succession to the throne of 
England was not interrupted because at 
various times pretenders rose up to claim it. 

In 1876 there was considerable doubt regard- 
ing the validity of the election of President 
Hayes. Suppose a Civil War arose on the 
matter between Democrats and Republicans. 
Both sides would agree that there was one 
President ; the only question would be which 
is the legitimate one. So with the Pope and 
anti-popes in the fifteenth century. All the 
Catholics of the time believed firmly that there 
was but one Pope ; the only question was, which 
was the legitimate one. 

Catholics, of course, realize that this schism 
caused great harm to souls, and weakened in 
the hearts of many the true reverence for the 
Papal power which has ever been the mark 
of true Christianity. In a measure it pre- 
pared the way for the schism of the sixteenth 
century, whereby many lost for themselves 
and their descendants the pure gospel of 
Christ. 

Still, the true succession went on through 
iTartin V.. the choice of the Council of Con- 
stance . and continues to this day unimpaired — 



298 The Question Box. 



a proof to every true follower of Christ of 
the supernatural character of the bark cf Peter, 
which has weathered many a storm by the 
power of Christ, the Son of God. (Alzog, vol. 
ii. p. 845, et seq.; Pastor, 1 ' History of the 
Popes, " vol. i.; Smith, Catholic Truth Society 
publications ; American Catholic Quarterly, a.d. 
1891, p. 67.) 

Does not the Primacy of the Pope interfere 
with the rights of individual bishops ? 

Not at all. The Pope does not absorb all 
episcopal authority. 

Suppose Peter was primate, and Bishop of 
Rome, how do you prove that his authority has 
been transferred all down the centuries to the 
Pope? 

It is evident that the divine society estab- 
lished by Christ w r as to continue until the end, 
just as He established it; for He guaranteed 
its permanence by His own abiding presence 
and the Holy Spirit's (Matt, xxviii.* 20 ; John 
xiv. 16, 26). 

Peter, therefore, must ever abide in the 
Church as its firm foundation (Matt, xvi.), its 
perpetual confirmer of the faith (L,uke xxii.), 
and its ruler and shepherd (John xxi.) Unless 
our Saviour provided for the succession in Peter's 
primatial office, His work would not have been 



The Primacy of the Popes. 299 



as well done as the work of the founders of 
our Republic, who provided against anarchy 
in the appointment of presidents to succeed 
one another as long as the United States 
would last. Surely the All- Wise Son of God 
was wiser than statesmen and politicians. 

No one outside the Bishop of Rome ever 
claimed to be St. Peter's successor, whilst all 
history is the witness of the universality of 
his claim. 

Your Pope is Anti-Christ. Does not he wear 
the number 666 in his belt— the mark of the 
beast? (Rev, xiii. 18). 

My questioner has fallen far behind his in- 
telligent Protestant brethren, who reject as 
mere raving this old-time absurdity. L,uther 
was the first to set the fashion when he wrote 
his pamphlet " Against the Execrable Bull of 
Anti-Christ," in answer to the document that 
condemned him. It was an argument to catch 
the ignorant and unthinking multitude. So 
our Saviour had said: 11 The disciple is not 
above the Master, nor the servant above his 
Lord. ... If they have called the good 
man of the house Beelzebub, how much more 
them of his household? (Matt. x. 24, 25; 
John xvi. 2, 3). 

If the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, why 



300 The Question Box. 

ion't he imitate him in simplicity of life ? Why 
ape the pomp and luxury of worldly princes ? 

The greater number of the Popes have been 
remarkable for their holiness of life. Surely 
the private life of Pope L,eo XIII. is full of 
Apostolic simplicity. As continually dealing 
with temporal rulers, the Popes have followed 
the customs of European princes. For many 
years indeed the Papal Court was recognized as 
the Supreme Court of Christendom, and kings 
and emperors were proud to do him homage. 
Catholics, moreover, do not pretend to apolo- 
gize for the failings of individual Popes. 

Is it not disgusting that your Pope claims to 
be a temporal ruler ? Did not the Saviour say : 
" My Kingdom is not of this world " ? 

The temporal power of the Pope is neces- 
sary for the perfect freedom and independence 
of the Holy See. Once admit the doctrine of 
the Primacy — that the Pope is the head of the 
Universal Church— and it follows logically that 
the Pope, to be free to teach and guide his 
entire flock, ought not to be subject to any 
authority outside himself. If he be subject to 
a prince, laws impairing his freedom of action 
may be passed in the interests of the government 
to which he is subject, and Catholics of the other 
nations would naturally view with suspicion 
fetters **f a Pope that might merely voice the 



The Primacy of the Popes. 301 

views of a foreign civil ruler. Even todij 
when the Pope is still independent because of 
his continued protest against the spoliation of 
1870, although practically a prisoner in the 
Vatican, the Italian government has suppressed 
newspapers favoring the claims of the Holy 
See, and has forbidden a representative of the 
Pope to represent him at the Hague Confer- 
ence. Napoleon's object in bringing Pius VII. 
to France was undoubtedly to make him a 
pliant tool of French interests in Europe. The 
sojourn of the Popes at Avignon in the four- 
teenth century, called the Babylonian Captivity 
(1309-1378), merited the protest of the Catho- 
lics of other nations, who demanded the return 
to Rome because of the predominant influence 
of France at the Papal Court. 

The Pope, therefore, as ruler of Christ's 
Church must be independent from the very 
nature of his office, and this independence can- 
not be had to the full unless he possesses a 
territory— large or small, it matters not—which 
is entirely his own. Since the fifth century the 
Popes possessed political power in Rome, 
which finally developed into .what were known 
as the Papal States. For centuries they held 
and exercised temporal power by a title better 
than that of any ruler of the world to-day. 

In our own country we have a striking 
illustration of the principle on which we claim 



3<D2 The Question Box. 

— _ : -4 

the temporal power of the Pope rests. The 
framers of our Constitution, to preserve the 
independence and free action of President and 
Congress, willed that a small territory called 
the District of Columbia should be free from 
any State authority, and directly dependent up- 
on Congress. Although more numerous than 
the inhabitants of certain States, the citizens of 
the District have no representatives in Congress, 
and have no right to vote on national or even 
local issues. So in the Catholic Church : 
there has been for centuries a territory re- 
served to the Sovereign Pontiff, to preserve him 
independent of any temporal ruler, and insure 
his free and untrammelled relations with the 
nations of the w T orld. 

No wonder, then, that the Roman See has 
protested against the outrage and injustice, 
w T illed not by the Italian people but by a small 
body of Freemasons and an ti- Christians, who 
now see Italy on the verge of national bank- 
ruptcy. "Qui mange du Pape en meurt ,) — 
"He who eats the Pope dies," said Thiers, as 
the present Italian government will one day 
learn. {Amer. Cath. Quarteily, Jan., 1892; 
1886, p. 193; 1891, pp. 330, 569; Cardinal 
Manning, "The Temporal Power.") 

What is the Catholic argument for Papal i& 
fallibility? 



The Primacy of the Popes. 303 



We have already seen that Christ estab- 
lished a divine, infallible authority to teach 
His gospel until the end of the world, just as 
He taught it. 

Once this is admitted, it follows logically that 
the Supreme Head cf this infallible Church 
must needs be infallible. For if St. Peter or 
his successor, speaking authoritatively to the 
Church, could teach false doctrine, then he 
would instantly cease to be the firm rock- 
foundation on which Christ built His Church, 
the gates of hell would prevail, error w r ould be 
sanctioned by God in heaven (Matt. xvi. 18, 
19), the prayer of Christ for Peter personally 
would be fruitless, for the faith of the brethren 
would not be strengthened (Luke xxii. 32), 
and the whole flock of Christ would be de- 
prived of the true food of divine faith (John 
xxi. 15-17). 

Does it not seem probable that if in these 
United States the framers of our Republic were 
wise enough to establish a Supreme Court to 
settle practically and finally all disputes re- 
garding the Constitution, in the Church the 
All- Wise Son of God, foreseeing and pro- 
phesying that false teachers would arise (" For 
there will arise false Christs and false pro- 
phets,' ' Mark xiii. 22), would have provided a 
Supreme Court to infallibly (else no man is 
bound to believe) \ decide every controversy 



3°4 



The Question Box. 



about written or unwritten doctrine? What 
has the Protestant denial of one Pope brought 
about save the creating of many, and an 
anarchy of opinion destructive among mil- 
lions of all supernatural religion whatsoever? 
(Lyons, "Christianity and Inf allibility ' ' ; 
Schanz, " A Christian Apology/ 9 vol. iii. ch. 
xiv.) 

Must Catholics believe that every utterance of 
the Pope is infallibly true ? 

By no means. The definition of the Vati- 
can Council ("On the Church of Christ," ch. 
iv.) is as follows: "Therefore faithfully ad- 
hering to the traditions of the Christian faith, 
which has come down to us from the begin- 
ning, ... we teach and define it to be 
a doctrine divinely revealed, that the Roman 
Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, 
when he in the exercise of the office of 
pastor, and doctor of all Christians, by virtue 
of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a 
doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held 
by the Universal Church, by the divine as- 
sistance promised him in Blessed Peter, pos- 
sesses that infallibility with which the Divine 
Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in 
the definition of a doctrine regarding faith or 
morals/' The Pope, therefore, is infallible 
©sly % 



Papal Infallibility. 



305 



1. When he speaks ^t: cathedra — as su- 
preme teacher of the Universal Church. He is 
not infallible as a private theologian, preacher 
or author, as local bishop, archbishop or pri- 
mate, or as supreme legislator, judge or ruler. 

2. When he defines a doctrine — -when he 
gives an absolutely final decision. 

3. When he treats of faith or morals, in- 
cluding the whole revealed Word of God, and 
all truths of philosophy and facts of history 
which are essential to the preservation, explana- 
tion, and defence of the content of revelation— 
v. g. y the existence of substance, the fact that 
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, the interpre- 
tation of Holy Scripture and the writings of 
the true and false teachers of the gospel. 

4. When he clearly manifests his intention 
to bind the Universal Church (America7i Catk. 
Quarterly, 1893, p. 677). 

How can a man be infallible ? Is that not a 
prerogative of God alone? 

God alone is absolutely infallible, for He 
alone is Absolute Truth that can neither de- 
ceive nor be deceived. He can, however, for a 
certain purpose — for example, to maintain His 
Church in unity of faith — make the Pope the 
true mouthpiece of His gospel by divinely safe- 
guarding him from error when he teaches the 
Universal Church. It is a question of fact to 



f 



306 



The Question Box. 



be learned from the witness of Scripture and 
history. 

How can an intelligent man believe that the 
Pope is exempted from the sins common to hu- 
manity ? 

Catholics do not believe this. Infallibility 
has nothing -whatever to do with the personal 
moral character of the Pope. He may com- 
mit sin as any other Catholic, and he is bound 
to use the same divine means of pardon, the 
sacrament of penance. There is absolutely no 
connection between the two ideas of impeccabil- 
ity which means immunity from sin in keeping 
the moral law, and infallibility, or freedom from 
error in teaching the Church the doctrines of 
Christ. 

Do Catholics hold that the Pope's utterances 
are inspired, like the Bible? 

No. Inspiration implies a direct revelation 
of truth by the Holy Ghost, whereby God is 
truly the author of the written or spoken word. 

Infallibility merely implies a divine assist* 
ance whereby the official teaching of the Pope is, 
under certain conditions, guaranteed from error. 

* ' Some have thought that by the privilege 
of infallibility was intended a quality inherent 
in the person, whereby as an inspired man 
he could at any time, and on any subject, de« 



Papal Infallibility. 307 



clare the truth. Infallibility is not a quality 
inherent in any person, but an assistance 
attached to an office ; and its operation . . . 
is not the discovery of new truths, but the 
guardianship of old ones. It is simply an as- 
sistance of the Spirit of Truth by whom Chris- 
tianity was revealed, whereby the head of the 
Church is enabled to guard the original de- 
posit of revelation, and faithfully declare it to 
all ages' 9 (Manning, "Story of the Vatican 
Council, " p. 183). 

Does not your Pope pretend to make wrong 
right, by claiming the power of dispensation ? 

The Pope makes no such claim. A dispen- 
sation is a relaxation of some law — v. the 
law of fasting. A legislator has power not 
only to make laws, but for sufficient rea- 
son to free some from their observance. This 
holds good in all systems of law — v. g. y Eng- 
lish licenses in mortmain. Papal dispensa- 
tions — direct or delegated — are only granted 
for things which would not be wrong, were 
they .not forbidden by the legislator; they 
remove the prohibition, and in the particu- 
lar instance the thing ceases to be wrong. 

It is false to pretend, as my questioner does, 
that the Pope or any one can dispense from 
the eternal laws of God, or from essential moral 
duties, for these are beyond man's power to 



308 ihe Question Box. 

tamper with. For instance, when Henry VIII 
demanded a dispensation to marry Ann Bolej'n, 
or when Napoleon desired Pius VII. to grant a 
divorce to his brother Jerome, the answer of 
both Pontiffs was that they had not the power 
to dispense from the law of God. 

Luther, on the contrary, could dispense 
himself from his vows and marry a nun, al- 
though strangely enough the Lutheran lawyers 
of the time w r ould not recognize his marriage ; 
and again, the Landgrave* of Hesse found him 
quite willing to grant a special dispensation 
in favor of polygamy. But these are not 
Catholic principles. 

If St. Peter was infallible, why did lie deny 
the Saviour? 

Infallibility is in nowise connected with the 
personal errors, weakness, or sins of individual 
Popes, but is limited only to ex cathedra utter- 
ances intended for the w r hole Church. At any 
rate, the objection falls to the ground, for at 
the time of the denial St. Peter was not Pope, 
for he had not yet received the gift of Pente- 
cost, which was necessary for the fulness of 
his powers. 

Did not Pope Liberius subscribe to an Arian 
Creed ? How could a heretic be infallible ? Did 
he not condemn St. Athanasius as a heretic ? 



Papal Infallibility. 



309 



It is by no means certain that Pope I^iberius 
subscribed any Arian Creed, for the documents 
alleging this are of doubtful authenticity. 
Granting that he did, there is no certainty 
which one he signed. It by no means follows, 
therefore, that he w r as a heretic, for the first and 
third of the formulas could be understood in a 
Catholic sense, and were faulty because they did 
not expressly exclude Arianism, while Sozomen 
(book iv. c. 15) tells us that I/iberius con- 
demned the second, the evidently heretical one. 
As to the alleged anathema against St. Atha= 
nasius, Protestants grant that this letter is 
spurious (Smith and Wace, " Dictionary of 
Christian Biography, " Athanasius 1, p. 192). 
The whole objection is not to the point, how- 
ever, for all grant that if the Pope did sub- 
scribe any creed, he did so, as St. Athanasius 
tells us, under the fear of death. No act ex- 
torted by violence can be an ex cathedra act ; 
and again, there is no evidence of his giving 
forth a decision on a point of faith with the 
express intention of making it binding upon 
the Universal Church. {Dublin Review \ Oct., 
186S, July, 1891 ; Irish Eccl. Record, April, 
May, June, 1888 ; Amer. Cath. Quarterly, vol, 
xix. p. 82, vol. viii., p. 529; L,. Rivington, 
M Dependence,' ' chap, iv.) 

How could Pope Honorius be infallible when 



3io The Question Box. 

he was condemned by tne Sixth General Council 
as a heretic ? 

* ' Pope Honorius may be reproached with 
having encouraged error indirectly by not pro- 
ceeding against it with timely vigor; but it 
cannot be said that he defined error, which 
would alone tell against the dogma. . . . 
A Pope is not infallible in proceedings such as 
those of Honorius, who contributed uninten- 
tionally to the increase of heresy by not issu- 
ing decisions against it. His letters (to Ser- 
gius) contain no decision, neither do they con- 
tain any false doctrine. No decision of his 
was or could be condemned as false ; otherwise 
the Sixth Council would have contradicted it- 
self, for it recognized that the Holy See had at 
all times the privilege of teaching truth. He 
was condemned for having rendered himself 
morally responsible for the spread of heresy by 
having neglected to publish decisions against 
it; and in this sense alone was his condem- 
nation confirmed by I^eo II." (Hergenrother, 
" Church and State," vol. i. p. 83). 

Even granted that the Council condemned 
him, his utterances were not ex cathedra , for in 
no less than four passages he declares that he 
has no intention of defining doctrine, and far 
from imposing his teaching on the Universal 
Church, it was not even heard of until after his 
death. Writes Cardinal Newman: "The con- 



Papal Infallibility. 311 



demnation of Honorius by the Council in no 
sense compromises the doctrine of Papal in- 
fallibility. At the most, it only decides that 
Honorius in his own person was a heretic, 
which is inconsistent w T ith no Catholic doc- 
trine.' 1 (" Difficulties of Anglicans/ ' vol. ii. p. 
317; Cardinal Manning, " Petri Privilegium," 
part iii. appendix vi.; Hettinger, 11 Supremacy 
of the Apostolic See," ch. xvii. pp. 83-97; 
Ryder, " Catholic Controversy " ; Hergem oth- 
er, " Anti-Janus," p 82; Pennachi, "De Ho- 
norii Causa in Cone. VI.," Rome, 1870; Fran- 
zelin, "De Verbo Incarnato, ,, thesis xl.; Dub- 
lin Review, July, 1868, Jan., 1869, April, 1870, 
July, 1872.) 

Is it reasonable to expect that God would choose 
wicked men like Alexander VI. to be the mouth- 
piece of His revelation ? 

It is reasonable to expect that the Vicars 
of Christ, taken as a body, would be holy men, 
and in point of fact w r e find this is the case. 
Proportionately there have been fewer bad 
Popes than bad Apostles. Still the individual 
wickedness of a Pope w r ould by no means inter- 
fere with his power of teaching infallibly, which 
rests not on man but on the promise of God. 
Did not Balaam (Num. xxii. 38) and Caiphas 
(John xi. 49, 51), although wicked men, pro- 
phesy infallibly? Did not our Lord Himself 



312 The Question Box. 

tell the Jews of His time that the personal un- 
worthiness of the teachers of Israel in no way 
interfered with their official teaching? (Matt, 
xxiii. 2, 3). Would the decision of a judge of 
the Supreme Court of the United States re- 
garding some clause of the Constitution be 
void because of his immoral private life ? 

How could an infallible Pope order Joan of Arc 
to be burnt as a witch, while to-day another 
Pope is trying to make her a saint ? 

Joan of Arc was never condemned as a witch 
by any Pope. The court that condemned her 
was composed of French and English ecclesias- 
tics who were enemies of France, and enemies 
of the Pope, as was evident two years later at 
the Council of Basle. Joan died a good Catho- 
lic, receiving Holy Communion the very morn- 
ing of her execution. Time and time again 
during her mock trial had she appealed "to 
our Holy Father the Pope," but her unjust 
judge, the unscrupulous Bishop of Beauvais, 
refused her appeal. Within twenty-five years 
after her death, Pope Calixtus III. declared 
the nullity of the trial and the innocence of 
Joan, and ordered a trial of rehabilitation, 
which on July 7, 1456, declared her innocent 
of all the charges against her. 

How in the face of history can you hold the 
dogma of Papal infallibility when every one 



Papal Infallibility. 



313 



knows that two Popes, Paul V. and Urban VIII, f 
officially declared the Copernican system held by 
the great astronomer Galileo to be false, heretical, 
and contrary to the Word of God ? 

Does not his cruel treatment and the mistakes 
of two infallible Popes show your infallible 
Church's hatred of true science and progress? 
For every one to-day says that Galileo was right 
— even Catholics. 

Before answering the several questions in- 
volved in this old shibboleth of controversy 
let us give a cursory glance at the facts in the 
case, as set forth in the records of the trials 
published for the first time in 1877 

In the beginning of the seventeenth century 
the world of scientists and theologians, with 
some few exceptions, believed most firmly in 
the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, relying on 
the authority of Aristotle, the Scriptures, the 
Fathers of the Church, theologians, and certain 
scientific arguments. 

Galileo, professor of mathematics at the 
University of Padua (1599-1610), and an as- 
tronomer of note, on a visit to Rome in 161 1 
vigorously attacked the Ptolemaic system of 
astronomy then in vogue, and declared the 
Copernican system, put forth tentatively by 
Copernicus in 1543, in his work "De Revo* 
lutionibus orbium ccelestium," as the only 
theory in accord with both faith and science. 



3H 



The Question Box. 



A letter of his to Padre Castelli, a Benedic- 
tine, setting forth his views as already pub- 
lished in two works ("Discourse on Floating 
Bodies," 1612; * < The Solar Spots," 1613), was 
sent to the Congregation of the Index by the 
Dominican Father Iyorini, Feb. 15, 1615. 

After a private discussion by a special com- 
mittee, the two following propositions of Gali- 
leo were condemned : 

1 st. That the sun is the centre of the world 
and altogether immovable. 

2d. The earth is not the centre of the world, 
nor immovable, but revolves of itself in diurnal 
motion. 

The first proposition was declared 1 1 stupid 
and absurd in philosophy, and formally hereti- 
cal, inasmuch as it expressly contradicted the 
words of Holy Scripture in many passages, 
according to the sense of the text and the com- 
mon interpretation and opinion of the holy 
fathers and learned theologians." 

The second " received the same censure in 
philosophy, and theologically was declared to 
be at least erroneous in faith." 

Pope Paul V. then ordered Cardinal Bellar- 
min to summon Galileo before him, and ask 
him, under threat of imprisonment, utterly to 
renounce his theory and to cease teaching or 
defending it in any form. This Galileo con- 
sented to do. 



Papal Infallibility. 



315 



The decree of the Roman Inquisition published 
March 5, 1616, declared the doctrine of Coper- 
nicus false and absolutely contrary to the Scrip- 
tures, removed from circulation the book of 
Copernicus, that of Astunica and others of the 
same school, until corrected. The text of this 
decree continued in all the editions of the In- 
dex—in full or in abstract — until suppressed 
by Benedict XIV. in 1757. 

In 1622 Galileo wrote his " Saggiatore " — a 
thinly- veiled defence of the Copernican system — 
which he dedicated to Pope Urban VIII., and 
in 1632 his famous "Dialogo," which was an 
evident defiance of the old decree of the In- 
quisition. 

The master of the Sacred Palace at Rome 
wrote the printers of Florence to suppress this 
work, and Galileo was cited before the In- 
quisition for trial. After considerable delay 
(Oct. 1, 1632-Feb. 13, 1633) Galileo arrived in 
Rome, and resided with Nicolini, the ambassa- 
dor of the Duke of Tuscany. In the course of 
his trial, given out in the interests of the 
truth by the Holy See in 1877, and published 
by H. de PEpinois, " L,es pieces du proces de 
Galilee" (Paris, 1877), Von Gebler, " I,es 
actes du proces de Galilee" (Stuttgart, 1877), 
and others, Galileo was asked : 1st, Did his 
book (" Dialogo ") teach the Copernican the- 
ory condemned in 1616? and 2d, Did he hold 



316 



The Question Box. 



that theory? The first question, after some 
hesitancy, was answered in the affirmative by 
Galileo ; with regard to the second, he declared 
that prior to 1616 he held that both theories 
were probably true, and that after 16 16 he 
held merely the Ptolemaic. 

Soon after, at the Dominican Convent, his 
condemnation was read by seven cardinals, and 
Galileo in their presence made abjuration on 
the Gospels of all false doctrine in general and 
of the Copernican system in particular. 

The favorite piece of old controversy dat- 
ing from 1761 ( (( E pure si muove— but it d' es 
move as well as the use of torture, is given 
the lie direct by the published records of the 
trial. Galileo's prison, moreover, was not the 
dark, terrible dungeon evolved out of the con- 
troversial imagination, but successively the pal- 
ace of his friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, 
at Rome ; the palace of his friend, Archbishop 
Piccolomini, at Siena, and his own villa of 
Arcetri, near Florence. 

The condemnation of Galileo has been 
brought forward ever since the Reformation as 
disproving the dogma of Papal infallibility ; 
but illogically and wrongly, as even fair-minded 
Protestants admit. 

Thus, the astronomer Proctor(" Knowledge," 
vol. ix. p. 274) writes : " The Catholic doctrine 
on the subject [of Papal infallibility] is perfect- 



Papal Infallibility, 317 



ly definite ; and it is absolutely certain that the 
decision in regard to Galileo's teaching, shown 
now to have been unsound, does not in the 
slightest degree affect the doctrine of infallibil- 
ity, either of the Pope or of the Church. . . . 
The decision was neither ex cathedra nor ad- 
dressed to the whole Church ; in not one single 
point does the case illustrate this doctrine of 
Papal infallibility as defined by the Vatican 
Council. 

Another Protestant, Karl Von Gebler, in his 
work " Galileo Galilei and 'the Roman Curia," 
writes to the same effect : li We grant that the 
two congregations of the Index and the Inqui- 
sition, with the two Popes who sanctioned and 
promulgated their decrees, were in error; but 
no one ever held that the decisions of the 
Roman congregations w r ere in themselves infalli- 
ble, even when approved by the Pope, unless 
specially set forth by the Pope with all the con- 
ditions required lor an ex cathedra definition." 

This is the teaching of Catholic theologians 
of the seventeenth as well as of the twentieth 
century. 

Thus, Caramuel in his " Theologia Funda- 
mentals, published in Lyons, 1676, declared 
that if the Copernican system should one day 
prove true, "it could never be said that the 
Church had been in error, as the doctrine of the 
double motion of the earth had never been con- 



$19 The Question Box. 

demned by an oecumenical council, nor by tha 
Pope speaking ex cathedra , but only by the tri- 
bunal of cardinals' 1 (cited by J, Bagshawe, 
"The Church/ ' p. 134). 

So Tanquery in his 1 1 Synopsis Theologian 
Dogmaticae," published in New York, 1897^ 
writes : " We readily grant that these congrega- 
tions were wrong in condemning Galileo, . , . 
and that the two Popes (Paul V. and Urban 
VIII.) erred, not only as private persons, but as 
the heads of these congregations, whose decrees 
were valueless unless approved by the Pope. 
But the decisions of the congregations, even 
when approved by the Supreme Pontiff, are not 
infallible, unless the Pope makes them his own, 
and promulgates them in his own name, with 
all the conditions required for an ex cathedra 
definition. This was not done in the present 
case, . • . nor can any theologian of re= 
pute be brought forward who declared these 
decrees to be infallible definitions' ' (vol. i. p 3 

477). 

The very insistence on the one case of Gali- 
leo out of 1900 years of history proves to all 
fair-minded non-Catholics the falsity of the ac- 
cusation that the Church is opposed to science. 
For Galileo was honored by the greatest 
churchmen and scholars of his day for his 
scientific knowledge and discoveries. It was 
his bitter attacks on the defenders of the com- 



Papal Infallibility. 319 



monly received Ptolemaic system, and his ap- 
peal to the Scriptures as proof, that brought 
about his condemnation. We must put our- 
selves in the stand-point of the sixteenth, and 
not of the twentieth century, remembering that 
the scientific arguments adduced by Galileo by 
no means proved the Copernican system. Many 
facts that we possess to-day — v.g^ the phe- 
nomena of aberration, the depression oi the 
earth at the poles, the variations of the pendu- 
lum according to latitude, etc.— were utterly 
unknown to Galileo [and his contemporaries, 
If Galileo's condemnation proves the Church's 
hostility to science, how is it that two centuries 
before that Nicholas Cusa, the first defender of 
the Copernican theory, was made Cardinal by 
Pope Nicholas V., and Bishop of Brixen, while 
Copernicus himself was made professor in the 
Pope's university at Rome in 1500, and given a 
life pension by Paul III. ? Moreover the de- 
crees against Galileo did not hinder in the 
least scientific advance in Italy ; but at Rome, 
Florence, and Bologna we find Catholic names 
by the score illustrious in the history of scien- 
tific discovery e (Jaugey, " Diction. d'Apolog£- 
tique," Galilee ; He de 1'Epinois, "L,es pieces 
du proces de Galilee/ ' Paris, 1877, " L,a Ques- 
tion de Galilee," Paris, 1878; Von Gebler, 
"Les actes du proces de Galilee," Stuttgart^ 
1877; Berti, "I,e proces de Galilee," Rome, 



320 



The Question Box. 



1878 1 Schanz> " Galileo Galilei et son proces," 
Wurzburg* 1878 ; Bouquard, f? Galilee son pro* 
e&s, sa condemnation, et les Cong. Rom./" 
Paris, 1886; Dublin Review, July, 1838, Octo* 
ber, 1865, April and July, 1871 ; Catholic World, 
January, 1869, October, 1887,) 

How could one Pope (Clement XIV., 1773) 
suppress the Jesuits, and another (Pius VII., 
1814) restore them, and yet both be infallible in 
their opposite decrees? 

Infallibility does not belong to the Pope as 
supreme legislator or judge in matters of dis- 
cipline, but only as supreme teacher in defin- 
ing doctrine to beheld by the Universal Church, 
as explained above. He is by no means in- 
fallible, therefore, either in suppressing a re- 
ligious order or in restoring it, and so Catho- 
lics can answer that the Pope may in such cases 
have erred. (Alzog, vol, iii. 562-572, 683 ; 
American Cath. Quarterly, 1888, p. 696.) 

Does not your dogma of infallibility give he 
Pope to-day the power he so arbitrarily exerck id 
iln the Middle Ages of deposing sovereigns, and 
absolving peoples from their allegiance ? 

The deposing power has nothing whatsoever 
to do with the dogma of infallibility, Pius 
IX, in a letter to the Roman Academy (July 
20, 1871) fully answers this objection. "This 



Papal Infallibility. 



321 



right," lie says, H has without doubt been 
exercised by the Supreme Pontiffs from time 
to time in crucial circumstances ; but it has 
nothing to do with Papal infallibility, neither 
does it flow therefrom, but from the authority 
of the Pope. Moreover, the exercise of this 
right in those ages of faith which regarded the 
Pope as the Supreme Judge of Christendom, 
and recognized the great advantages of his 
tribunal in the great contests of peoples and 
of sovereigns, was freely extended by public 
jurisprudence and the common consent of na- 
tions to the most important interests of states 
and of their rulers. But altogether different 
are the conditions of the present time ; and 
malice alone can confound things so diverse, 
viz., the infallible judgment concerning the 
truths of divine revelation with the right which 
the Popes exercised in virtue of their author- 
ity when the common good demanded it." 

We must be careful not to view the Middle 
Ages with the eyes of the twentieth century, 
Then Christendom was a society of Catholic 
nations, acknowledging one only faith under 
the supremacy of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ 
Everywhere in the public jurisprudence of the 
time his right to depose sovereigns was ac- 
knowledged without question. He was made 
supreme arbiter in the Ages of Faith, to safe- 
guard the people against the tyranny of their 



322 



The Question Box. 



rulers. To say that the Popes exercised this 
power arbitrarily is to give the lie to history. 
On the contrary, the Popes only acted in virtue 
of the public law, and in cases where a ruler 
had violated his coronation oath, or set at 
naught all laws, both human and divine. 

The action of the Popes may be justly com- 
pared to the impeachment of the President of 
the United States as laid down in the Consti- 
tution. Again, the same principle is voiced in 
the Declaration of Independence: " We, there- 
fore, the representatives of the United States 
of America, in general council assembled, 
. . . do solemnly publish and declare that 
these united colonies, . . . are absolved 
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and 
that all political connection between them and 
the State of Great Britain is, and ought to 
be, totally dissolved.' ' 

Is it true that according to Catholic teaching 
the State ought to be subject to the Church ? 

How can Catholics give this country an un- 
divided allegiance when they are subject to a 
foreign power? 

If the law of the Pope should conflict with the 
laws of the United States, which would you 
obey ? 

The Catholic doctrine on the relations of 
Church and State are thus set forth in I^eo 



Papal Infallibility. 323 



XIII.'s Encyclical on the ' 1 Christian Consti- 
tution of States " : 

"The Almighty, therefore, has appointed 
the charge of the human race between two 
powers— the ecclesiastical and the civil ; the 
one being set over divine, the other over 
human things. Each in its kind is supreme; 
each has fixed limits within which it is con- 
tained, which are defined by the nature and 
the special object of the province of each, 
so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out 
within which the action of each is brought into 
play by its own native right; but inasmuch 
as each of these two powers has authority 
over the same subjects, and as it might come to 
pass that one and the same thing— related dif- 
ferently, but still remain one and the same 
thing— might belong to the jurisdiction and 
determination of both, therefore God, who fore- 
sees all things and who is the Author of these 
two powers, has marked out the course of each 
in right correlation of the other. For the 
powers that are, are ordained of God (Rom. 
xiii. 1)." And further on he marks clearly the 
connection : * ' One of the two has for its proxi- 
mate and chief object the well-being of this 
mortal life ; the other, the everlasting joys of 
heaven. Whatever, therefore, in things human 
is of a sacred character, whatever belongs 
either of its own nature or by reason of the 



324 



The Question Box. 



end to which it is referred, to the salvation 
of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject 
to the power and judgment of the Church. 
Whatever is to be ranged under the "civil and 
political order is rightly subject to the civil 
authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given 
command that what is Caesar's is to be render- 
ed to Caesar, and what belongs to God is to be 
rendered to God" (Luke xx. 25). 

The Catholic Church teaches that no man's 
allegiance to the State is absolute and un- 
divided, but must always be limited by con- 
science and the law of God. 

Patriotism — love for country in all things 
not opposed to the law of God — is with the 
Catholic not a mere caprice or emotional feel- 
ing, but a positive religious dut} r , commanded 
by Jesus Christ and His Apostles (Luke xx. 
25; Rom. xiii. 1-4; I. Pet. ii. 13-15). 

If the laws of the State go counter to Chris- 
tianity, then of course the Catholic says with 
St. Peter, even though it mean death: "We 
ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 
v. 29). Thus, frequently in the course of his- 
tory loyalty to Christ meant disobedience fo 
a State that taught anti-Christian principles, 
or exacted obedience to an iniquitous law, as 
the sacrifice to the gods of pagan Rome in the 
early days of the Church, the attempt in Eng- 
land in penal days to enforce attendance at 



Papal Infallibility, 325 

— , . 

Protestant worship and to exact the denial of 
the Pope's supremacy in things spiritual, or the 
permission of divorce contrary to the Scrip- 
tures (Mark x. 2-12). 

The Pope, as the universal Pontiff of the 
Christian Church, does not claim any right to 
interfere in purely temporal affairs, so that the 
A. P.A.'s denial of the loyalty of Catholics to 
their country because in the things of God 
they knew and believed that the Roman Pon- 
tiff was their head in spirituals, arose from ig- 
norance of the very first principles of Catho- 
licism. 

For suppose — to take an impossible case— 
the Pope had commanded all the Catholic sol- 
diers and sailors in the American army and 
navy not to fight for their country against Spain 
in the late Spanish- American War, they would 
on Catholic principles be perfectly justified in 
refusing compliance. When in the Middle 
Ages the Popes were temporal princes, we find 
Catholic princes and peoples making no scruple 
in opposing them on merely political lines, 
while fully acknowledging their supremacy in 
spirituals, 

At the time of the Spanish Armada there 
was not the slightest question of the loyalty 
of English Catholics, even though they were 
being persecuted to the death. 
As a matter of fact, the Catholics of these 



326 



The Question Box. 



United States have ever been ready to rally by 
the thousands to their country's defence in time 
of danger, from the American Revolution down 
to the late war with Spain. It is good to re- 
call the address of George Washington thank- 
ing the Catholics of his day for their loyalty : 
" I hope ever to see America among the fore- 
most nations in examples of justice and liberal- 
ity. And I presume that your fellow- citizens 
will not forget the patriotic part W'hich you 
took in the accomplishment of their Revolution 
and the establishment of their government, or 
the important assistance they received from a 
nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is 
professed" (Sparks's Washington, vol. xii.; 
Cardinal Newman's and Manning's answer to 
Gladstone's " Vatican Decrees " ; Hergenroth- 
er, " Church and State" ; Archbishop Keane, 
' i Loyalty to Rome and Country"; America?i 
Cat/i. Quarterly, 1890, p. 509. 



THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 
Does not St* Paul teach: " Therefore we con- 
clude that a man is justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law"? (Rom. iii. 28). 

"St. Paul here contends," writes Moehler, 
" against the Jews of his own time, who obsti- 
nately defended the eternal duration of the 
Mo$aie law, and asserted that, not needing a 



The Doctrine of Justification. 327 



Redeemer froi& sin, they became righteous and 
acceptable before God by that law alone. In 
opposition to this opinion, St. Paul lays down 
the maxim, that it is not by the works (deeds) 
of the law, i.e., not by a life regulated by the 
Mosaic precepts, man is enabled to obtain the 
favor of Heaven ; but only through faith in 
Christ, which has been imparted to us by God 
for wisdom, for sanctification, for righteousness, 
and for redemption. Unbelief in the Redeemer, 
and confidence in the fulfilment of the law per- 
formed, through natural power alone, on the 
one hand, and faith in the Redeemer and the 
justice to be conferred by God on the other 
(Rom. i. 17, x. 3; Phil. iii. 9) — these, and not 
faith in the Redeemer, and the good works 
emanating from its power, constitute the two 
points of opposition contemplated by the Apos- 
tle" (" Symbolism/ 9 ch. iii. sec. xxii. p. 

165). 

The Scriptures clearly show that man cannot 
be saved by faith alone, but by that living, vital 
faith that produces good works. 

" If thou wilt enter into life, keep the com- 
mandments" (Matt. xix. 17). 

" Seest thou that faith did co-operate with 
his works, and by works faith was made per- 
fect? . . . Do you see that by works a 
man is justified, and not by faith only ? . . . 
Vox ev§n as the body without spirit i$ dead, 



328 



The Question Box. 



so also faith without '#orks is dead" (James 
ii. 22-26). 

" If I should have all faith, so that I could 
remove mountains, and have not charity, I am 
nothing" (I. Cor. xiii. 1, 2). 

* Not every one who saith to me, 1 Lord, 
Lord,'- shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, 
but he that doth the will of my Father, who is 
in heaven " (Matt. vii. 21). 

When St. Paul declares, M Therefore being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. v. 1), 
he plainly means, " For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor 
uncircumcisron ; but faith that worketh by 
charity" (Gal. v. 6), 

The old Protestant doctrine which attributes 
to faith alone the power of saving has not the 
slightest warrant in Scripture. "Love must 
already vivify faith, before the Catholic Church 
will say that through it man is truly pleasing 
to God. Faith in love, and love in faith, justi- 
fy ; they form here an inseparable unity. This 
justifying faith is not merely negative, but 
positive withal; not merely a confidence that, 
for Christ's sake, the forgiveness of sins will be 
obtained, but a sanctified feeling, in itself agree- 
able to God. Charity is undoubtedly, accord- 
ing to Catholic doctrine, a fruit of faith. But 
faith justifies onlywhen it has already brought 



The Doctrine of Justification. 329 

forth this fruit" (Moehler's " Symbolism," 
ch. iii, sec. xix. pp. 146-7; cf. pp. 115-153). 

What do you think of the doctrine of total 
depravity ? 

It was the doctrine of Luther and Calvin that 
human nature, because of original sin, became 
essentially corrupt, so that men could neither 
think, speak, do, or love anything but evil. 
4 4 Sin is not an act or a phenomenon of our 
nature, ' [ taught Luther ; ' * it is our very nature, 
and our whole being itself." All that you 
can do begins in sin, remains in sin ; it may ap- 
pear ever so good and pretty ; you can do noth- 
ing but sin, act as you please." 

And Calvin says: "There remains this in- 
dubitable truth which no artifice can shake, 
that the mind of man is so far alienated from 
God's justice that he violently conceives, de- 
sires, and strives after nothing that is not im- 
pious, fallacious, filthy, impure. His heart is 
so filled with poison, that it breathes forth 
nothing but stench." {Cf. Presbyterian Con- 
fession of Faith, 1827, Art. xi.; Anglican Arti- 
cles, viii. ; quoted by Hecker, "Aspirations of 
Nature," ch. xix., p. 142, 145, 146, etc.) 

The Catholic Church in the Council of Trent 
condemned this dreadful doctrine of the Re- 
formers, which made God the author of evil 
(Sess. vi., De Just., can. 5-7). She declares 



$30 



The Question Box, 



that man is made to the image and likeness ot 
God, essentially good, with reason to know the 
truth and free will to choose the good, and that 
the fall left man's reason and free will essential- 
ly uninjured. The supernatural always builds 
upon the natural. If human nature were es- 
sentially corrupt man would be incapable of the 
supernatural (see "Aspirations of Nature," 
xxvi. xxvii.; Moehler's M Symbolism/ * ch. ii.) 

Of course Protestants of to-day, as a rule, 
repudiate the teachings of Luther and Calvin 
regarding total depravity, and the sinfulness of 
good works. Indeed, thousands have by an 
inevitable reaction from this fearful doctrine 
come to deny altogether the fact of original sin, 
the necessity of faith, or the existence of a 
supernatural order. This is the Nemesis of 
error. 

What is the Catholic doctrine of merit ? 

Do you teach that men merit heaven by their 
good works ? How, then, is salvation absolutely 
free ? " By grace are ye saved through faith ; 
and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. 
JNot of works, lest any man should boast " (Eph. 
ii. 8, 9). 

Th * Council of Trent thus sets forth the 
CathoJic teaching ° ' * Eternal life is to be pro- 
posed to those who do good unto the end and 
hope in God? both as a grace mercifully prom- 



The Doctrine of Jtistification. 33? 

ised to the children of God through Jesus 
Christ, and as a reward to be faithfully ren- 
dered to their good works and merits, in virtue 
of the promise of God. • . • 

' 1 For since Christ Jesus Himself constantly 
communicates His virtues to those who are 
justified, as the head to the members, and as 
the vine to the branches (John xv. 4) ;— which 
virtue always precedes, accompanies, and fol- 
lows their good works, and without which they 
could be nowise agreeable to God and meri- 
torious,— we must believe that nothing more is 
wanting to the justified, nor is there any reason 
why they should not be considered as having 
fully satisfied the divine law, as far as the con- 
dition of this life admits, by such works as are 
done in God, and truly merited the attainment 
of eternal life in due time, if they die in the 
state of grace M (Trent, De Just., Sess. vi, 
cap. xvi.) 

Catholics believe that eternal life is indeed 
a free gift of God's mercy and love, won for 
us by Christ's death ; but God having prom- 
ised it as a reward to those who love and 
serve Him, we can by performing good works 
through God's grace really merit the glory 
in heaven* 

The Scriptures continually speak of God 
giving us eternal blessedness as a reward due 
to merits 



33* 



The Question Box, 



u Be glad and rejoice, for your reward i| 
Tery great in heaven " (Matt, v, 12), 

J ' There is no man that hath left home . . , 
who shall not receive . . . in the world to 
come life everlasting * * (I,uke xviii. 29, 30). 

u God, who shall render to every man ac- 
cording to his works. To them indeed, who 
according to patience in good work seek glory t 
, . . eternal life" (Rom. ii. 6, 7). 

" He that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit 
shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good 
let us not fail, for in due time we shall reap, 
not failing' 9 (Gal. vi. 8, 9). 

" I have fought a good fight. I have finished 
my course. I have kept the faith. As to the 
rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, 
which the Lord, the just Judge, will render to 
me in that day" (II. Tim. iv. 7, 8; cf. Matt, 
xxv. 34; I. Tim. vi. 18; Apoc. xiv. 12). 

Protestants frequently believe that Catholics 
ascribe the merit of their good works to them- 
selves and not to Jesus Christ, the Saviour. 
This is not the fact. Catholics believe that no 
natural act can merit eternal salvation; that 
we can do nothing for heaven without the 
merits of Jesus Christ, the one Mediator, and 
the grace of God won for us all by His 
redemption. " Our sufficiency is from God 5 * 
(II. Cor. lii s s) 9 4 4 Without Me you can do 
nothing 99 (John xv. 5). Every good work we 



The Doctrine of Justification. 333 

do is the effect of the Holy Ghost, and our free 
will co operating with Him. ff By the grace of 
God I aui what I am; and His grace in me 
hath not been void, but I have labored more 
abundantly than all they j yet not I, but the 
grace of God with me" (I. Cor. xv. io) f 
H As ink is required for the pen," says St* 
Thomas Aquinas, M sa the grace of the Holy 
Ghost is necessary to inscribe the virtues in 
our souls." 

lo annhahdO isdl oa lasohrsh aft ni anoint 
What do Catholics mean by " works of super- 
erogation " ? I hold that no matter what a mai> 
does, he still falls far short of his duty, accord- 
ing to the word of Christ ? *• When ye shall have 
done all those things which are commanded you, 
say « We are unprofitable servants " (Luke xvit 
10)* 

Works of supererogation are those not posi- 
tively commanded, but counselled by the law 
of Christ. Such, for example, are the three 
counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, 
freely embraced by those who wish more per- 
fectly to follow the Master (Matt. xix. 12- 
21 ; K Cor. vii. 25). Thus, the early Chris- 
tians were not obliged to sell their possessions 
and hand over the proceeds to the Apostles 
(Acts v, 4), but they did so out of love for 
Jesus Christ, who declared voluntary poverty to 
be a counsel of the perfect life (Matt, xix, 21). 



334 



The Question Box. 



" The consciousness of being in the posses- 
sion of an all-sufficing, infinite power ever dis- 
closes the tenderer and nobler relations of man 
to God, and to his fellow-creatures ; so that 
the man sanctified in Christ, and filled with 
His spirit, ever feels himself superior to the 
law. It is the nature of heaven-born love — 
which stands so far, so infinitely far, above the 
claims of the mere law, never to be content 
with its own doings, and ever to be more in- 
genious in its devices; so that Christians of 
this stamp not unfrequently appear to men of a 
lower grade of perfection as enthusiasts, men 
of heated fancy and distempered mind. It is 
only in this way that remarkable doctrine can 
be satisfactorily explained, which certainly, 
like every other which hath for centuries ex- 
isted in the world, and seriously engaged the 
human mind, is sure to rest on some deep foun- 
dation — the doctrine, namely, that there can 
be works w T hich are more than sufficient {opera 
supcrerogationis) — a doctrine, the tenderness 
and delicacy whereof eluded, indeed, the per- 
ception of the Reformers ; for they could not 
even once rise above the idea that man could 
ever become free from immodesty, unjust 
wrath, avarice, and the rest " (Moehler, " Sym- 
bolism/* ch. iii. sec* xxiii. p. 168). 

Catholics know full well that the love of 
God Essential for -salvattaa i$. mmytimd in tk& 



Prayer. 



335 



words of the Saviour : " If thou wilt enter 
into life, keep the commandments " (Matt. xix. 
17) ; that Christian humility demands of every 
one the recognition of his sins against God 
(I. John i. 8) ; that no good works of their 
own can ever merit the grace of justification, 
and the right to God's Kingdom, which come 
through Christ's passion and death upon the 
cross. But, on the other hand, the Scriptures 
clearly teach, and Christian antiquity is wit- 
ness thereof, that there is an essential dis- 
tinction between the commandments of God 
and the evangelical counsels, and that xnany 
saints by the following of poverty, chastity, 
and obedience, and the practice of heroic vir- 
tue, have obtained many graces and helps for 
their weaker brethren of the Communion of 
Saints. In this sense St. Paul could say: 
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, 
and fill up those things that are wanting of 
the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for His 
body, which is the Church" (Col. i. 24). 



PRAYER, 

Is not prayer an asking God to change the laws 
of nature He Himself established? 

Is it not absurd to ask God to change His mind, 
vhen He knows what is best for us ? 

St. TJfciQQi^a Aquinas thug answers this dii* 



336 



The Question Box. 



Qculty (" Summa," 2a. 2ae. q. 83. a. 2) : * € In 
proclaiming the utility of prayer, we are not to 
be understood as putting any restraint on hu- 
man acts subject to Divine Providence, nor are 
we supposing any change in the ordinances of 
God. Divine Providence has determined in ad- 
vance, not only the effects which are to be pro- 
duced, but also their order and the causes 
which are to produce them. Among these 
causes are included human acts. Man, there 
fore, must do somethings not indeed to change 
by his acts the arrangement of God, but to 
concur in producing certain effects in accord- 
ance with the divine dispensation. Just as it 
is with regard to physical causes, so it is too 
with regard to prayer. The aim of prayer is 
not to alter the designs of God, but to ask that 
we may obtain what God had determined to 
grant us by our prayers." (Card. Gibbons^ 
" Out Christian Heritage," ch. ix.; American 
CatK Quarterly r 1896, p. 491.) 

.i .Io0) ** doindO sdi ar doi&Y, r vbod 
Does not prayer encourage laziness and make 
people neglect doing what they should do them- 
selves ? 

Not in the slightest. The intelligent Chris- 
tian who prays earnestly for the cure of a 
sick friend does not neglect to employ a good 
physician also. The good priest who prayt 
hard for' the. -W& version of gmngrs does not 



Prayer, 



337 



neglect the personal visit and the word of ad- 
vice, warning, encouragement, or threat. He 
knows that God wishes us to use every natu- 
ral means at our disposal, but he knows also 
that God has given us the supernatural help of 
prayer. And so every nation has prayed, even 
though its religion or philosophy gave the lie 
thereto ; so deeply rooted in the human heart 
is the belief in a. supernatural help vouchsafed 
man for the asking. 

Our objector has in mind, undoubtedly, the 
superstitious fanaticism of the Dowieties, for 
example, who, contrary to Christian principles, 
neglect the use of remedies in curing diseases ; 
or perhaps the Christian Scientists, who speak 
of prayer, although their denial of a personal 
God makes the term a mockery. 

Why tell God our needs when God knows them 
beforehand ? 

The object of prayer is not to inform God of 
our necessities or of our inmost sentiments of 
love, praise, sorrow, or thanksgiving, for He, 
the Omniscient One, knows all the secrets of 
our hearts. 

The Christian prays, however, to fulfil a 
duty written in the heart of man and insisted 
on constantly by the Son of God. The ele- 
mental principle of religion is the acknowledg- 
ment of God as our Creator, Lord, and Final 



338 



The Question Box, 



Destiny, and our litter dependence upon him. 
The revelation of Jesus Christ, unfolding to us 
so many new proofs of that Creator's love, 
makes this acknowledgment the more impera- 
tive. 

The Son of God teaches us how to praise, 
bless, adore, thank, and crave pardon of God, 
and promises us favors through the invocation 
of His holy name: " If you ask the Father 
anything in my name, he will give it to you" 
(John xvi. 23). 

Why do not Catholics pray as the heart dic- 
tates, instead of always repeating a certain 
number of set prayers ? 

Because our Lord taught us the beauty and 
efficacy of special prayers in that most per- 
fect of all prayers, the Our Father (L,uke xi. 
1-4). The Catholic Church, teaching in His 
name and with His divine authority, has fol- 
lowed His example in sanctioning many other 
beautiful prayers, as the Hail Mary, the Creed, 
the Confiteor, the prayers of the Mass, the An- 
gelus, the Rosary, etc., in order that the mem- 
bers of a universal society may have in the 
unity of common prayer a common bond of de- 
votion to God and His saints. 

Our objector must not forget, however, that 
besides vocal prayer, there exists in the Catho- 
lic Church the higher forms of mental and con* 



Prayer. 



339 



templative prayer, in which great saints, like 
St. Paul, St. Teresa, St. Catharine, excelled. 
We recommend to his careful study some of 
our elementary books on Christian Perfection, 
which will open a new field of vision into the 
spiritual life of Catholics. (Cf. Baker's ki Holy 
Wisdom," lyallemant's " Spiritual Doctrine," 
Hilton's " Scale of Perfection," St. Teresa's 
Autobiography, a Kempis* "Following of 
Christ," the works of St. John of the Cross, etc.) 

Is not a broken and a contrite heart a better 
offering to God than a thousand repetitions of 
prayer ? 

Did not Jesus rebuke repetitions in prayer, 
paying : " Use not vain repetitions as the heath- 
ens do"? (Matt. vi. 7). 

Our questioner must distinguish between two 
kinds of repetition. There is in the house 
Bear me as I w r rite a parrot who repeats by the 
iiour, with all the different changes of inflection 
and without the slightest spark of intelligence, 
" How do you do ? " " Bad— bad— bad boy ! " 
'Hello, Polly!" "Good-by," etc. So it is 
jpossible some people pray parrot-like without 
thinking of God at all. This manner of pray- 
ing our lyord rebukes when He said: * 'This 
people honoreth Me with their lips, but their 
heart is far from Me " (Matt. xv. 8; Is. xxix. 
*3). 



540 



The Question Box. 



But there is, on the other hand, the oft-re« 
peated * 1 I love you ' ■ of the mother speaking 
to the babe at her breast, which loses none of 
its force in the repeating, but rather intensi- 
fies the love of that mother's heart by out- 
ward expression. Such the repeated prayer to 
God of the devout soul — be it a prayer of 
praise, adoration, thanksgiving, petition, or 
sorrow for sin. 

A contrite heart is essential to forgiveness, 
both for the Catholic who confesses his sins to 
an apostolic priesthood, vested with divine au- 
thority to pardon (John xx. 23), and the one* 
who, unable to confess, is bound to make a 
perfect act of love of God to obtain pardon c 
The voicing of that sorrow in heart-felt words, 
no matter how often repeated, is both rational 
and scriptural. 

Our Lord never rebuked in the slightest de- 
gree repetitions of prayer. The text of old- 
time controversy — Matt. vi. 7 — is mistranslated 
in the Protestant version. The literal original 
Greek is " speak not much/' while the untrue 
Protestant paraphrase, ' * Use not vain repeti- 
tions/ ' is read into the text by designing met 
who sought some scriptural basis for an attack 
upon the Church. On the contrary, Chu^ 
Himself exhorts us to repetition in prayer in 
the parable of the unjust judge (Luke xviii* 
3-8) and the importunate friend (Luke xh 



Prayer, 34 1 

5-8) . In the Garden He repeats His prayer to 
the Father three times: "And He prayed a 
third time, saying the self-same words H (Matt, 
xxvi. 39, 42, 44). In heaven the angels never 
tire of repeating day and night "Holy, Holy, 
Holy, Lord God Almighty 11 (Is. vi. 3 ; Apoc. 
iv. 8). The repeated prayer of the blind man, 
" Son of David, have mercy upon me 9 A (Matt, 
xx. 31 ; Mark x. 48 ; L,uke xviii. 39), was an- 
swered by the gift of sight (cf. Ps. cxxxv.) 

What, then, does our I^ord condemn ? It is 
the much speaking, or the "long prayers, 5 * of 
the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 14; Mark xii. 40; 
Luke xx. 46, 47), not because of their mere 
length, but because of the motive of the Phari- 
sees in praying : U For all their works they do 
to be seen of men H (Matt, xxiii. 5). 

The hypocritical Pharisees prayed just as 
they gave alms and fasted (Matt. vi. 1-8 ; Mark 
xii. 38; Luke xxi. 1), to awaken public ad- 
miration. They prayed long, elaborately-com- 
posed prayers just as the heathens did, of 
whom St. Augustine wrote: "And truly all 
much speaking comes from the Gentiles, who 
give more attention to the elegant delivery 
of their prayers than to the cleansing of their 
souls." 

Neither the heathens nor the Pharisees prayed 
silly "vain repetitions/ 1 as Protestants imagine, 
for these would never have been such a source 



The Question Box. 



of pride. Their extempore prayer was rathef 
on the order of certain Protestant minis- 
ters to-day whose public prayers are really 
speeches for the congregation, affording an 
opportunity for the display of their literary 
ability. So a Unitarian convert, now a priest; 
told me that the prayer of the Unitarian min- 
ister in the church he attended in Boston 
years ago used to be elaborate^ prepared, and 
discussed afterwards by the people. " What 
a beautiful prayer ! What a poor effort to-day ! 
etc/' This kind of praying, when it is merely 
of the lips and not from the heart, is what our 
Lord condemns. 1 i True prayer,' ' says Stc 
Gregory, commenting on the text in 'question 
(Matt. vi. 7), "consists rather in the bitter 
groans of repentance than in the resounding 
periods of an oration" (J. F. Sheahan, " Vain 
Repetitions/ 1 Cathedral Library Association, 
New York). 

Why are not all our prayers answered, when 
Christ said, ¥ If you ask the Father anything in 
my name, He will give it to you " ? (John xvL 

23). 

What did you pray for ? — temporal blessings ? 
We have a right to ask God for health, suc- 
cess, fortune, and the like, according to our 
Lord's own words: "Give us this day our 
daily bread" (Matt. vi. 11), but He often re- 



Prayer. 



343 



fuses what we ask, because He knows it would 
keep us from His love here and His kingdom 
hereafter. If a sick bed brought us close to 
God, while health would make us forget Him ; 
if failure humiliated us and forced us to turn 
to God for comfort, while success would puff 
us up with self-sufficiency ; if poverty made us 
friends of the poor Christ, while riches would 
render us full of avarice, lust, and irreiigion, 
then God, foreseeing all this, grants our peti- 
tions for these temporal favors by not giving us 
what we ask for. We in our ignorance may 
not understand the reason why; God knows 
what is best for us all. 

Did you pray for spiritual blessings for 
others, viz., the conversion of a friend or 
relative ? Your prayers were not unheeded, 
for God undoubtedly poured forth His grace 
in superabundant measure upon the soul you 
loved. There may be no outward sign of the 
efficacy of }~our prayer, but who knows the 
secret workings of God ? Undoubtedly man 
has the power to resist God's grace unto the 
end. He wants a free service and will compel 
no man to serve Him. But constant prayer 
has melted many a hard heart, as Christians 
know full well. 

Have you prayed for yourself, * 4 Forgive us 
our trespasses ; lead us not into temptation, but 
deliver us from evil/' with humility, faith, 



344 The Question Box,. 

love, and sorrow for sin? God never refuses 
such prayers. 

Most important, too, is the manner in whicn 
you prayed. If, for instance, while your lips 
framed some careless, mechanical prayer, your 
heart was bent upon other things, could you 
expect God to answer you? 

You would not dare to speak thus to a 
friend you loved dearly. 

* f This people honoreth me with their lips ; 
but their heart is far from me " (Matt. xv. 8). 

Again, our L,ord taught us to pray with 
humility ', realizing well our sins and unworthi- 
ness, and our utter dependence upon Him. 
Some people demand favors of God as a right, 
and blaspheme His holy Name for not answer- 
ing at once. "The prayer of him that huni- 
bleth himself shall pierce the clouds " (Ecclus. 
xxxv, 21 ; cf. the parable of the Pharisee and 
the Publican, Luke xviii. 10-14). 

Other conditions on which He insists are 
faith, confidence, and perseverance, by which, 
despite every difficulty, one continues to ask of 
God every needful grace of body and soul ; con- 
sider the woman of Chanaan (Matt. xv. 22-28), 
the parable of the importunate friend (Iyukexi. 
5-8), the unjust judge (Iyuke xviii. 2-5; xi.9-13). 

Why don't Catholics finish the Lord's Prayer ? 
Why is our " Our Father " different from yours ? 



The Sacraments. 345 



Catholics do finish the Lord's Prayer. They 
repeat it as the Saviour taught it, without 
1 any human additions. The words ' * for thine 
is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory 
for ever," in the King James version of Matt, 
vi. 13, are not found in the most ancient manu- 
scripts of the New Testament, and were re- 
jected by St. Jerome in the fourth century 
in his edition of the Vulgate, as they are re- 
jected to-day by Protestant scholars ; v.g., the 
Protestant revised version of 1881, the Greek 
text of Westcott and Hort, etc. The words in 
question are a marginal gloss interpolated by 
some copyist, who while writing had in mind 
those words of the Greek liturgy which are 
probably borrowed from a passage in the Old 
Testament. 

In Luke xi. 2-4 the King James version 
omits the above gloss. 



THE SACRAMENTS. 

What do you mean by a sacrament? 

A sacrament is a visible sign permanently 
instituted by Jesus Christ to signify and confer 
grace upon men. Three things are necessary 
for a sacrament : 1st, the sensible sign, as in 
Baptism the outward washing of the body 
with the invocation of the Blessed Trinity ; 2d* 



346 The Question Box. 

the inward grace signified and conferred, as in 
Baptism, the cleansing of original sin and 
actual sin if it exists; and 3d, institution by 
Jesus Christ. 

The chief reason of the sacraments is the 
will of Jesus Christ manifested in the gospels, 
and infallibly witnessed to by His Church. It 
is perfectly in accord with man's nature that 
sensible things should be made by God the 
stepping-stones to things supernatural, The 
whole idea of the Incarnation is "a redemp- 
tion of the internal through the external ' < 
(George Tyrrell, S.J., "External Religion, " 
ch. i. B. Herder, 1900) , and the sacraments are 
merely the application to the individual soul 
of the fruits of the Incarnation. They are 
the seven precious channels of the blood and 
merits of the atonement, flowing from the cross 
upon the hearts of sinful men to wash away 
their sins, and give them the life of grace 
which Christ died to gain. They give the 
Church, a visible society, a visible bond of 
union, and visibly witness, especially baptism 
and the Eucharist, to the oneness of her chil- 
dren in the faith and love of Christ. Practi- 
cally speaking, they have helped religion won- 
derfully, for they give certain, concrete, and 
ready helps to uproot sin from the hearts of 
men, and to promote, as in the Blessed Sac- 
rament, the highest love for and the closest 



The Sacraments. 



347 



union with Jesus Christ. (Humphrey, "The 
One Mediator 9 9 ; Wilhelm-Scannell, "A Man- 
ual of Theology,' ' vol. ii.; Hunter, "Outlines 
of Theology/ * vol. iii.) 

Are not the sacraments mere signs or cere- 
monies to excite sentiments of faith and love in 
the heart ; to mark off the Christian from the un- 
believer ? 

No ; the Council of Trent (Sess. vii.; can. 
6-8) has defined that the sacraments are not 
merely external signs of grace, but actually 
confer of themselves (ex opere operato) the 
grace which they signify. The proof fiom 
Scripture is plain. 

* ' He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved' ' (Mark xvi. 16). 

" Unless a man be born again of water and 
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God" (John iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26). 

' ' Do penance and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of your sins, and you shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38). 

" They laid their hands upon them, and they 
received the Holy Ghost, and when Simon saw 
that by the imposition of the hands of the 
Apostles the Holy Ghost was given, etc." 
(Actsviii. 17-18. Cf. Acts xxii. 16; II. Tim. 
i. 6; Tit. iii. 5.) 



348 



The Question Box. 



If the sacraments were mere signs, would 
not the practice of infant baptism by the Church 
from the beginning, or by Protestants general- 
ly, be perfectly useless, as likewise the ancient 
custom of giving Confirmation and Holy Eucha- 
rist to children, as is still done in the East 
to-day , (For the Fathers, Wilhelm-Scannell, 
{i A Manual of Catholic Theology," vol. ii. p, 
363 •) 

Does not the teaching of your Church regard- 
ing the sacraments give to the mere performance 
of material rites a certain magical power ? 

Not at all, for we do not believe that the 
sacraments act like magic to cleanse a soul 
from sin independently of the interior dis- 
position of the one receiving them. 

The Catholic Church demands : 1st. That a 
person be qualified to receive them; for in- 
stance, an unbaptized person cannot receive the 
sacrament of penance, or one in good health 
cannot be given Extreme Unction. 2. That a 
person possess the necessary dispositions; for 
example, a sinner who is not sorry for griev- 
ous sin from supernatural motives, or who re- 
fuses to promise not to offend God in future, 
cannot be pardoned in the Sacrament of Pen- 
ance, and is guilty of the still greater sin 
of sacrilege by accepting absolution in that 
state of soul. 



The Sacraments. 349 

All the conditions being present, however, the 
sacraments do not merely signify the grace 
of God, but they effect the grace they signify, 
being channels of the grace of God, won for 
us by Christ's death upon the cross. 

If, as your Church teaches," the efficacy of a 
sacrament depends on the intention of the minis- 
ter, how can any one ever be certain of having 
received a sacrament? 

We have a strong moral certainty which is 
practically absolute, for only an insane per- 
son would perform an action without the in- 
tention of performing it. And if perchance, 
through the malice or neglect of an indivi- 
dual, one were to be deprived of the benefit 
of a sacrament, God could give the grace in- 
dependently thereof. (Rev. Sydney Smith, 
S.J., 4 'Doctrine of Intention, " Catholic Truth 
Society publications.) 

Can any one administer the sacraments in 
your Church? 

No ; the Catholic Church believes, with St. 
Paul, in a ministry ordained by Christ for 
that purpose, and therefore limits the admin- 
istration of the sacraments to those in holy 
orders, with the exception of baptism in cases 
of necessity, it being necessary for saltation — 
1 1 So let a man think of us as the ministers of 



35o 



The Question Box. 



Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of 
God " (I. Cor. iv. i) — and that of matrimony, 
in which the parties themselves are the min- 
isters of the sacrament, while none the less 
obligated to be married in the presence of 
their pastor. 

Can a sinful man, or one who denies the Chris- 
tian faith, be the minister of a valid sacrament? 

Yes ; for the minister acting merely as an 
instrument, the sacramental action derives its 
power and efficacy from the principal cause, 
God. So we read that Pope St. Stephen (a.d. 
255—7) decided against St. Cyprian that the 
baptism conferred by heretics was valid, and 
that rebaptism was unlawful. Again, in the 
fifth century St. Augustine w 7 rote against the 
Donatists, who declared that sinners could not 
validly baptize : 1 ' The sacrament of baptism 
is not dependent on the merit of those who ad- 
minister it, but on Him of whom it is said, 
It is He who baptizes " (lib. iii. c. 4, De Bap- 
tismo ; cf. Trent., Sess. vii. can. 12). 

Two things are required in the minister of 
the sacrament : attention, for he must know 
what he is doing, and "the intention of doing 
w T hat the Church does " (Trent., Sess. vii. can. 
11). Thus, infidel and Jewish physicians in 
the hospitals of New York, w T ho do not believe 
in the Catholic Church, know what a sacra- 



The Sacraments. 351 



ment is, and believe that it is something sacred, 
have in cases of necessity validly baptized 
dying children, because they out of courtesy 
and respect to the wishes of Catholic priests 
have had the intention of performing an act 
held sacred by the Catholic Church. 

How many sacraments are there ? We Prot- 
estants believe but two, Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper ? 

The Catholic Church (Trent., Sess. vii. can. 
1) defines that there are seven sacraments of 
the New Law, neither more nor less, while 
the doctrine of Protestants on this point is set 
forth in the XXV. Article of the Church of 
England : " There are two sacraments ordained 
of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, /. Bap- 
tism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five 
commonly called sacraments, i. e.> Confirmation, 
Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and the Extreme 
Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments 
of the Gospel," etc. 

Before the Reformation it was universally 
maintained, by both East and West, that there 
were seven sacraments. Peter Lombard (lib. 
iv. dist. 2, Sentent.) in the twelfth century 
mentions them all, and the other Scholastics 
never question the fact. The Greeks, who 
discussed every possible point of variance with 
the Latins at the Council of Lyons (a.d. 1274) 



352 



The Question Box. 



and of Florence (a.d. 1439) never doubted on this 
point. Indeed, the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
Jeremias (a.d. 1574-158 i), when the German 
reformers sought to obtain recognition in the 
East, answered their appeal by expressly re- 
pudiating their new teaching, among which 
he mentions their doctrine of only two sac- 
raments. That the Fathers of the Church 
never mention expressly the number need not 
surprise us, when we reflect that they never 
attempted to write systematic theologies. From 
an historical point of view, the agreement of 
the East and West on this matter is a sufficient 
proof that their doctrine was held for at least 
a thousand years before the Council of Trent ; 
for what both teach surely dates from the 
beginning of the controversies between them. 
A belief as old as this is, on the argument 
of prescription, apostolic teaching. "Is it 
likely that so many and so great churches 
should have gone astray into one Faith ? 
Never is there one result among many chances. 
The error of the churches would have taken 
different directions. Whatever is found to be 
one and the same among many persons is 
not an error but a tradition' 9 (Tertullian, De 
Praescr., c. 28). 

Did not your Church originate the seven sacra* 
ments ? 



The Sacraments. 353 

By no means, for we believe that God alone 
is the author of grace, and only by His special 
appointment could material rites be made the 
channels of His grace to men. The Council 
of Trent teaches (Sess. vii. can. 1, De Sac.) 
that all the sacraments of the New L,aw were 
instituted by Christ. We do not hold, how- 
ever, that the Saviour prescribed every detail 
of the ceremonies, words, and actions to be 
used in each sacrament, for as a matter of fact 
the custom of the Church on these points has 
varied at different times and in different places. 

Is there any difference between Christian bap- 
tism and the baptism of John? 

Yes ; the difference defined by the Council 
of Trent (Sess. vii., De Bap., can. 1) was set 
forth expressly by John himself (Matt. iii. 
11): "I indeed baptize you in water unto 
penance, but He that shall come after me is 
mightier than I. . . . He shall baptize 
you in the Holy Ghost and fire." The cere- 
mony performed by John was not a sacrament 
at all, but aroused feelings of sorrow, which 
prepared the hearts of his hearers for the true 
sacrament of Christ, as we learn from Acts 
xix. 3-5. 

Why do you not call the washing of the feet a 
sacrament? (John xiii. 4-10). 



354 



The Question Box. 



If we were to judge by the Bible only, we 
might fall into this error with the modern 
Dunkards, but the Catholic Christian has a 
divine, infallible interpreter of Scripture, the 
Church, w r hich declares that there are but 
seven sacraments (Trent., Sess. vii. can. i). 
The words of our Saviour are to be considered 
a counsel, not a commandment ; a ceremony of 
devotion, and not a sacrament, in this case. 

Why do you hold that Baptism, Confirmation, 
and Holy Orders cannot be repeated ? 

Because they impress " a certain spiritual 
and indelible sign," as we learn from the defi- 
nition of the Council of Trent (Sess. vii., De 
Sacr., can. 9), which voices the constant tradi- 
tion of the Church, following the Scriptures 
(II. Cor. i. 21, 22; Eph. i. 13; iv. 30). 

What is original sin ? Is it not unjust to hold 
us guilty for Adam's sin ? 

" Original sin is distinguished from actual 
or personal sin in this : that actual or personal 
sin is the sin which we personally with our own 
free will commit, whilst original sin is that 
which our human nature committed with the 
will of Adam, in whom all our human nature 
was included, and with whoin our human 
nature is united as a branch to a root, as a 
child to a parent, as men who partake with 



Original Sin, 



355 



Adam the same nature which we have derived 
from him, and as members of the same human 
family of which Adam was the head " (Faa 
di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 28). 

Our first parents were created in the grace 
and friendship of God, and endowed with 
great gifts of soul and body ; namely, immor- 
tality, immense knowledge, perfect dominion 
over the passions, freedom from sickness, pain 
and labor, on condition of their not eating 
the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden 
of Eden. They disobeyed this easy command- 
ment, and thus forfeited for themselves and 
their descendants sanctifying grace, all their 
supernatural gifts, and were wounded an i 
weakened even in their natural powers. 

" The supernatural end or destiny of man 
still held good. But he lost that original gift, 
the exercise of which was to enable him to at- 
tain it. He became as the eagle whose home 
and nest is on a peak of the Andes, and 
whom the trapper snares and maims, until 
his mighty pinions will carry him no more. 
. . . Henceforth man could do no work cap- 
able of meriting the life to come. Henceforth 
the life to come was out of his reach. . . « 
The child of God became a child of wrath, 
, . . Fallen man became the slave of the 
devil, to be tempted in life, to be punished 
after death. It was from such a state as this 



356 The Question Box. 

- - air" n --.ti t i itf -m -i «n - - ■ - - n I* 

that man had to be saved" (Bishop Hedley, 
*'Our Divine Saviour," Sermon iii.) 

The doctrine of original sin is taught by St. 
Paul : " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered 
into this world, and by sin death, and so death 
passed upon all men in whom all have sinned " 
(Rom. v. 12). 

It would indeed have been unjust had God 
imputed to us the personal sin of another, or 
deprived us of something due to human nature. 
But "it is not the sin of Adam inasmuch as 
that was personal which God imputes, but 
the necessary effect of his sin — that is, the 
deprivation, the rejection, as it were, of origi- 
nal justice, which Adam wilfully incurred as 
head of the whole human race, and which 
therefore we also, as united to Adam, have 
incurred. In this no vestige of injustice ap- 
pears. Men do not thereby lose anything 
which their nature requires" ("Catholic Be- 
lief," p. 340). Sanctifying grace is God's free 
gift, which He can give or take away on con- 
ditions laid down by Himself alone. And 
though we are all to-day, through Adam's sin, 
born *' children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3), God in 
His infinite love gives every one ample oppor- 
tunity of regaining the grace His only Son 
died on the cross to merit. 



Does your Church hold that Baptism is abso* 



Baptism. 



357 



lutely necessary for salvation? How can a 
merciful and just God allow little infants, who 
through no fault of theirs die unbaptized, to 
suffer for ever in hell fire? 

The Catholic Church has defined (Trent.. 
Sess. vii., De Bapte, can. 5) that baptism is 
necessary for salvation. The words of Christ 
are plain : " Unless a man (in the Greek its. 
any one) be born again of water and the 
Holy Ghost, be cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God " (John iii. 5), He commands uni- 
versal baptism (Matt, xxviii. 19), declaring: 
i 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved, but he that believeth not shall be con- 
demned' V (damned, in Protestant version £ 
Mark xvi. 16). 

This necessity follows from the fact that all 
men are born " children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3)* 
that is, in original sin (Rom. v. 12), and need 
therefore the regeneration or new birth of which 
the Saviour speaks. This doctrine of the 
Church was clearly taught in the fourth cen- 
tury by the condemnation of the Pelagians> 
who denied the necessity of baptism for chil- 
dren. 

This necessity is not strictly absolute, as we 
learn from Trent., Sess. vi., De Justif., can. 4, 
which declared that " since the promulgation 
of the Gospel there is no translation from the 
State of Old Adam to the State of Grace, 



358 



The Questioii Box. 



e . . without the laver of regeneration, or 
the desire of it" (John iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26). 

In cases of necessity, therefore, this baptism 
of desire will suffice foi salvation ; and the per- 
fect love of God ( u He that loveth Me shall be 
loved of My Father,' * John xiv. 21), and sor- 
row for sin, surely include the desire to fulfil 
every command of Christ. Such is the teach- 
ing of St. Augustine (De Bapt., iv. 22), and 
St. Ambrose in a sermon preached at Milan 
on the death of the catechumen Valentinian II. 

Martyrdom also, or baptism of blood, has 
always been considered equivalent to baptism 
of water, according to the words of Christ: 
4 1 Every one, therefore, that shall confess Me 
before men, I will also confess him before My 
Father who is in heaven ,J (Matt. x. 32). Even 
unbaptized children, murdered out of hatred 
for Jesus Christ, are considered saints by the 
Church (see Feast of the Holy Innocents, Dec. 
28). In the case of adults martyrdom must 
be fully embraced, an J from supernatural 
motives alone. " He that shall lose his life for 
Me, shall find it" (Matt. x. 39). 

With regard to children who die unbaptized, 
Catholics generally hold, against Calvin (Inst., 
lib. iii. ch. 23, sec. 7), that they do* not suffer 
any punishment. The most common teaching 
on the matter is that they are indeed excluded 
from heaven and the supernatural vision of 



Baptism. 



359 



God, because they have not fulfilled the con- 
dition laid down by Christ (John iii. 5). This 
privation, however, is not unjust on God's 
part, for the glory of heaven is a free super- 
natural gift, not due to human nature ; nor 
does it imply suffering, for the little ones most 
likely do not even know there is such a thing 
as the Beatific Vision, and so know God and 
rejoice in Him, as St. Thomas teaches, <( by a 
natural knowledge and love." We might com- 
pare them to adopted children on this earth 
who, not knowing the fact of their real mother's 
death, have never felt the pain of that priva- 
tion. 

Is not Baptism a mere external ceremony of 
initiation into the body of the Christian fellow- 
ship ? 

No ; this is a new doctrine of the Reforma- 
tion, following logically from the doctrine of 
justification by faith alone. The Catholic 
Church teaches that (< Baptism is a sacrament 
which cleanses us from original sin, makes 
us Christians, children of God, and heirs of 
heaven" (Catechism of Third Plenary Coun- 
cil, lesson xii.) It is not a mere outward sign, 
but a sign (washing of the body with the in- 
vocation of the Blessed Trinity) that of itself 
signifies and confers grace, cleansing from 
original sin as well as actual mn previously 



360 The Question Box, 



committed, and imprinting on the soul a spir- 
itual and indelible character. 

Scripture with all Christian antiquity clearly 
expresses this notion of the sacrament of Bap- 
tism which effects our entrance into the Church 
of God. 

" Unless a man be born again of water and 
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God" (John iii. 5). 

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved" (Mark xvi. 16). 

" Going therefore, teach ye all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt, 
xxviii. 19. Cf. Acts ii. 37-41, viii. 12, 16, 38, 
ix. 18, x. 48, xvi. 33, xviii. 8, xix. 5 ; I. Cor. 
i. 14, 16; Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12; I. Con 
xii. 13 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; Tit. iii. 4-7. For the 
Fathers see Waterworth, " Faith of Catholics," 
vol. ii. pp. 108-131.) 

May we not understand baptism of water in a 
figurative sense ? Is not baptism of the Spirit 
sufficient ? 

No, as the Church has declared (Trent., 
Sess. vii. can. 2). I remember on a non- 
Catholic mission in Jacksonville, 111., meeting 
a man who assured me that the voice of the 
Holy Spirit had told him that he was sanctified 
by a spiritual baptism without any external 



Baptism. 



36i 



washing of water. Of course it is as impos- 
sible to argue with, such a one as with an in- 
sane man who believes himself the Emperor 
Napoleon. 

Our Saviour clearly and emphatically de- 
clares water necessary (John iii. 5): "Unless 
a man be born again of water and the Holy 
Ghost 1 ' ; and so he was understood by the 
Apostles (Acts viii. 27-39, x. 44-48, etc.), and 
ever since by the Universal Church. When, 
how r ever, baptism of water is impossible be- 
cause unknown, or water is unobtainable, it 
may be supplied by what is known as the 
baptism of blood or martyrdom, or the baptism 
of desire, which consists in the perfect sorrow 
which blots out sin. 

Do you not read in the Scripture that many 
were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ? 
(Acts ii, 38, viii. 12-16, xix. 2-5). 

Yes ; but it is plain that these words do 
not indicate a denial of baptism in the names 
of the Trinity, as laid down by Christ Him- 
self (Matt, xxviii. 19), but rather a description 
of Christian baptism as opposed to John's bap- 
tism, or the various Jewish ablutions of the 
time. This is clear from Acts xix. 2-5. 

Ts it not unjust to impose the obligations of a 
church on children without their consent, and be- 
fore they understand their import? 



362 



The Question Box, 



Christ's baptism is not something to be 
accepted or rejected at will, but is an abso- 
lute necessity of salvation. No obligations, 
therefore, are imposed on the child, save those 
which he is bound to accept when he reaches 
the age of reason. We acquire our civil citi- 
zenship by the fact of our natural birth, with- 
out being questioned on the matter. Why not 
our divine citizenship, an infinitely greater 
good, by the fact of our supernatural birth in 
baptism. If some one left your child a large 
Inheritance, would } r ou demand that it be left 
in abeyance until your child was old enough to 
accept it or reject it ? And behold baptism 
makes us heirs of the kingdom of God, our 
"eternal inheritance " (Heb. ix. 15). 

Why do you rebaptize Protestants when they 
enter your Church ? 

I know of a case of a minister of the gospel 
whom the priest required to be baptized again. 

We do not rebaptize them, for baptism can 
be received only once. The conditional bap- 
tism that we often administer to converts, with 
the form "If thou art not baptized, I baptize 
thee, etc." is a safeguard made necessary be- 
cause of the lax views and careless practice re- 
garding baptism that generally prevail outside 
the Catholic Church. 

Some, for instance, deny altogether its sac- 



Baptism. 



363 



ramental character ; others in baptizing a 
number at once sprinkle the water so care- 
lessly that it merely touches the clothes of 
some ; and again, others use a different form 
than the one prescribed by our Lord (Matt, 
xxviii. 19). 

I remember hearing of one case not long 
since of a minister immersing the subjects for 
baptism in a large tank near the pulpit, while 
another from a distance repeated the form " I 
baptize thee in the name of the L,ord Jesus." 
Unless, therefore, there is certainty about the 
validity of the former baptism, non-Catholics 
are baptized conditionally on entering the 
Catholic Church. If perchance the original 
baptism was validly performed, the subsequent 
ceremony is not a sacrament at all. 

May I, a Protestant^ be sponsor for a Catholic 
child at its baptism ? 

No; for it is evident that a non-Catholic 
sponsor would not be likely to provide for the 
Catholic bringing up of the child, if perchance 
the parents failed in their duty. 

Again, no outsider has a right to participate 
In the sacraments of the Catholic Church. 

I am a Baptist, and hold that nothing else but 
immersion is baptism. Was that not the prac- 
tice of the primitive Christians ? Was not Christ 
the Lord baptized by immersion? 



364 The Question Box. 

Mir ■ 1 — i — — — — — — 1 ' • — — — — grig 

Well, you are a good close-comtnunion Bap-, 
tist, I suppose; but you hold a new teach- 
ing that dates only from the seventeenth cen- 
tury. Catholics are fully aware that the early 
practice of the Church (cf. the baptism of 
Christ, Matt. iii. 16, Mark i. 10; that of the 
eunuch, Acts viii. 38, 39, and St. PauPs sym- 
bol of burial and resurrection, Rom. vi. 4, 
Col. ii. 12) was to immerse, and that this cus- 
tom prevailed in both the East and West in 
the solemn administration of the sacrament till 
the end of the thirteenth century. 

But, on the other hand, there is abundant 
evidence to prove that immersion was not the 
only mode, and that pouring on of water 
was considered equally valid. It is doubtful, 
to say the very least, w r hether the three thou- 
sand converts of St. Peter on Pentecost day 
(Acts ii. 41) were immersed, because of the 
scarcity of water in the cit}' of Jerusalem 
(Robertson, "Biblical Researches in Pales- 
tine/ • vol. i. pages 479-516) ; or whether im- 
mersion was practised in the home of Cornelius 
(Acts x. 47, 48), or in the prison at Philippi 
(Acts xvi. 33). It is certain that invalids un- 
able to leave their t>eds were not immersed, 
as St. Cyprian (a.d. 248) expressly declares 
when questioned as to the validity of clinical 
baptism. Quoting Ezech. xxxvi. 25 as a 
prophecy of Christian baptism, and Num. viii. 



Baptism. 



365 



and xix., where reference is made to the Jew- 
ish sprinkling, he says: "Whence it is ap- 
parent that the sprinkling of water has like 
force with the saving washing' ' (Epis. lxix. 
11-12). In the "Doctrine of the Apostles," a 
document written towards the close of the 
first century, reference is made to baptism by 
pouring (N. vii.) 

Indeed, the positive necessity of baptism, 
which is plain from John iii. 5, proves con- 
clusively that immersion, which is generally 
difficult and often impossible to practise, could 
not have been established as essential by the 
All- Wise Son of God. Must men in prison, 
the sick and the dying, the child just born, 
the Esquimaux in the bitter cold of the Arctic 
circle, or the Bedouin of the parched Syrian 
desert, where water is most scarce, each and 
all be immersed, or allowed to die without bap- 
tism? 

So say many Baptists, who without a thought 
suffer infants and adults to die unbaptized, a 
criminal neglect against which the Catholic 
Church protests most emphatically. 

If, again, immersion be the only valid mode, 
none are really baptized save those who have 
been immersed. It would follow then that over 
a hundred years after the Reformation un- 
baptized men (a.d. 1638) restored the Church, 
which had been entirely lost in the world, 



366 



The Question Box. 



by giving to one another that which they did 
not possess themselves. If baptism had en- 
tirely perished, whence the right of any man 
to restore it on his own authority? 

The Catholic Church, therefore, as the in- 
fallible interpreter of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 
declares that all three ways of baptizing are 
equally valid, by immersion, by pouring, or 
by sprinkling. The present mode of pouring 
arose from the many inconveniences connected 
with immersion, frequent mention of which is 
made in the writings of the early Church 
Fathers. 

But, as a necessary safeguard, Catholics are 
not permitted to use the form of sprinkling. 

Does not the word Baptize always signify im- 
mersion in the original Greek? 

By no means ; it sometimes means in pro- 
fane authors, and even in the Scripture, pour- 
ing or sprinkling (Num. xix. 12; Mark 
vii. 4). Referring to Mark vii. 4, a Protest- 
ant writer, Hodge (vol. iii. page 533, " Sys- 
tem. Theol."), says : "To maintain that beds 
or couches were immersed, is a mere act 
of desperation. Baptism means here, as it 
does everywhere when used of a religious rite, 
symbolical purification by water, without the 
slightest reference to the mode in which that 
putificatioG was effected'' (See Kitto ? "BibL 



Baptism. 



367 



Encycl.," Baptism ; McClintock and Strong, 
Cyclopaedia). 

Why do you baptize children in your Church, 
when the Scriptures plainly require faith and 
repentance ? "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved " (Mark xvi. 16). "Re- 
pent (do penance) and be baptized " (Acts ii. 38c 
See also Acts ii. 37-41, viii. 12-37, xvi. 14-31 > 
xviii. 8, xix. 18). 

It is evident that these passages of Holy 
Scripture refer to adults only. 

The Apostles, preaching to adults, required 
faith in the gospel of Christ and repentance 
for all past sins as absolute conditions before 
administering baptism. So the Catholic Church 
to-day, in perfect accord with this Apostolic 
teaching, demands of all unbaptized adults 
who seek admittance to her fold faith in all the 
doctrines of Christ and repentance of ^11 past 
sins. 

The necessity of infant baptism rests, — 
1st. On the fact of original sin. Every man 
because of Adam's sin is born into the world 
deprived of God's grace, and of the right of 
entrance into heaven. "We were by nature 
children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3). " Wherefore 
as by one man sin entered into this world, and 
by sin death ; and so death passed upon all 
men, m whom all have sinetd " (Rom, v, 12). 



368 The Question Box. 

2d. On the words of Jesus Christ, who ex- 
pressly teaches the necessity of every individtiaV s 
being cleansed from this sin and freed from 
this wrath by baptismal regeneration. "Un- 
less a man be born again of water and the 
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God" (John iii. 5). The word for "a 
man" in the original Greek is its, which 
means any one — man, woman, or child. 

3d. On the constant practice of Christian 
tradition. Origen wrote in the third century : 
1 ' The Church received from the Apostles the 
tradition of baptizing even little ones" (In 
Epis. ad Rom., lib. v. n. 9); and again; 
c< Whence is it that since the baptism of the 
Church is given for the remission of sins, bap- 
tism is, according to the observance of the 
Church, given even to little children? Be- 
cause assuredly, if there were nothing in little 
children needing remission and pardon, the 
grace of baptism would be superfluous " (Horn, 
viii. in I^evit.) (For other patristic testimony 
see Waterworth, "Faith of Catholics," vol. ii. 
pp. 108-131.)- 

It is probable that there were children in the 
households baptized by St. Paul (I. Cor. i. 16 ; 
Acts xvi. 15, 33), although there is no con- 
clusive proof in the New Testament of the 
practice of infant baptism. In this matter 
many Protestants inconsistently violate their 



Baptism. 



369 



principle of the Bible onfy as a rule of faith, 
and follow the divine tradition of the Catho- 
lic Church. 

Again, if a man must be justified by an act 
of faith in Jesus Christ, and an infant is in- 
capable of such act, it follows logically on 
Protestant principles that children ought not 
to be baptized. So are they "tossed to and 
fro, and carried about with every wind of doc- 
trine " (Eph. iv. 14) — Baptist against Metho- 
dist or Episcopalian. Denying the existence 
of a divine authority, how can they know the 
truth ? In the meantime countless little ones 
die as they were born, "children of wrath." 

What is meant by Baptism for the dead ? (I. 
Cor, xv. 29). 

No one knows with certainty what is meant 
by this obscure text of St. Paul. Many inter- 
pretations have been suggested, viz., that it 
refers to baptism administered over the tombs 
of the martyrs, or at the point of death, or 
some symbolic ceremony performed by the re- 
lations of a deceased catechumen. 



37o 



The Question Box. 



CONFIRMATION. 

Is there any proof in the Bible that Christ in- 
stituted Confirmation as a sacrament distinct 
from Baptism? 

Jesus Christ, the night before He died, 
promised to send the Holy Spirit (John xv. 
26, xvi. 13; cf. vii. 39), which promise He 
fulfilled in the upper room at Jerusalem (Acts 
ii. 4). The sacrament of Confirmation, where- 
by through the imposition of the bishop's 
hands, anointing and prayer, baptized Christians 
receive the Holy Ghost in order to be con- 
firmed in the faith, is clearly mentioned in Acts 
viii. 14-17. " Now when the Apostles who 
were in Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had 
received the word of , God, they sent unto them 
Peter and John. Who, when they were come, 
prayed for them, that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come 
upon any of them ; but they 'were only bap- 
tized in the name of the L,ord Jesus. Then 
they laid their hands upon them, and they re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost.' ' 

St. Paul administered this sacrament at 
Ephesus. " And when Paul had imposed his 
hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon 
them, and they spoke with tongues and pro- 
phesied" (Acts xix. 6). In writing to the 
Corinthians he says : 1 ' He that confirmeth us 



Confirmation. 



371 



with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, 
is God ; who also hath sealed us, and gi /en 
the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts' 1 (II. 
Cor. i. 21). 

The Fathers of the Church frequently men- 
tion the sacrament of Confirmation ( i ' Faith 
of Catholics/ ' vol. ii. pp. 132-149). St. Cyp- 
rian, for example, commenting on Acts viii., 
says : 1 ' Because they had received the legiti- 
mate baptism, . . . what was wanting, 
that was done by Peter and John, that prayer 
being made for them, and hands imposed, the 
Holy Ghost should be invoked, and poured 
forth upon them. Which now also is done 
amongst us, so that they who are baptized in 
the Church are presented to the Bishops of 
the Church, and by our prayer and imposi- 
tion of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost, 
and are perfected with tb~ seal of the Lord " 
(Ep. 73). 

The fact that those Oriental schismatic 
churches which separated from Rome in the 
fifth century still recognize Confirmation as a 
sacrament of Jesus Christ, proof positive of 
its apostolic origin. The Catholic, however, has 
the divine, infallible witness of the Church of 
God (Trent., Sess. vii., De Conf., can. 1). 



372 



The Question Box. 



PKNANCE. 

Why does your Church distinguish between 
sins? Are they not all equal before God? 

Sin is the conscious and voluntary trans- 
gression of the law of God, a direct violation 
and contempt of the moral order established 
by the Divine Will, and a turning from God, 
our Ultimate End, to find our satisfaction in 
creatures. In the Christian it implies, further- 
more, contempt for our Lord and Master Jesus 
Christ. 

Reason tells us that,, sins are not all of equal 
malice. The hurried mechanical prayer, or 
the quickly repented outburst of temper, are 
surely not on an equal plane with deliberate 
murder, adultery, or slander. Scripture is also 
witness to the distinction between mortal sins, 
which are deliberate and voluntary transgres- 
sions of a commandment gravely binding (such 
as Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit 
adultery), depriving the soul of God's friendship 
and causing the loss of eternal life (" Neither 
fornicators, nor idolaters? nor adulterers, nor 
drunkards shall possess the Kingdom of God," 
I. Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; "If thou wilt enter into 
life, keep the commandments/ J Matt. xix. 17), 
— and ve?ital sins, which do not cause the spir- 
itual death of the soul, although they imply 
neglect of the commandments of God. "In 



Penance, 



373 



many things we all offend' ' (James iii. 2) ; 
<£ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves" (I. John i. 8; Matt. xii. 36). 

Does not St. James teach that one sin is as bad 
as another when he says: "Whosoever shall 
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, 
he is guilty of all " ? (James ii. 10). 

Yes ; but he is speaking of the comparative 
guilt and malice of mo7'tal sins, like murder 
and adultery, as we learn from the verse fol- 
lowing (James ii. 11). 

What is the sin against the Holy Ghost ? Is 
this the only unpardonable sin? 

The sin against the Holy Ghost is gen- 
erally thought to be the continued and wilful 
resisting until death of the grace of God, 
whether to embrace God's truth or to obey 
God's commandments. It is not unpardon- 
able, absolutely speaking, for God is always 
ready to forgive the repentant sinner ; as a mat- 
ter of fact, it is not pardoned, because the sin- 
ner deliberately refuses to co-operate with God's 
grace, or to do what he knows is absolutely 
necessary for salvation. 

The case mentioned by our Saviour (Matt, 
xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28-30; Luke xii. 10) 
was the wilful rejection of the miracles Jesus 
Christ had wrought in proof of His divine 



374 



The Question Box, 



mission, aud the malicious ascribing of them 
to the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils 
(Matt. xii. 24). 

In our own day, those are guilty of the same 
sin who, knowing the Catholic Church to be 
the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, persis- 
tently refuse to enter it because of worldly in- 
terests, loss of property, friends, social or poli- 
tical position. 

Where in the Bible is auricular confession 
taught ? 

Why do Catholics have secret confession ? 
Did Jesus ever tell us to confess our sins to a 
priest ? 

Granted that the Apostles had the power to for- 
give sins, what proof is there that their power 
has been perpetuated ? 

The Catholic confesses his sins to a priest 
because he knows that Jesus Christ commanded 
him to do so, by the institution of the Sacra- 
ment of Penance. 

That the Saviour gave the power to pardon 
sin to His Apostles is clear from John xx. 21- 
'23. "As the Father hath sent me, I also 
send you. When He had said this, He breathed 
on them, and He said to them : Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, 
they are forgiven them ; and whose sins you 
shall retain, they are retained." 



Penance. 



375 



The Father had sent His only begotten Son 
into the world to redeem it from sin. Our 
Lord tells us Himself that His mission was to 
save sinners. 

" For the Son of Man is come to save that 
which was lost" (Matt, xviii. n). 

1 1 I was not sent but to the sheep that are 
lost of the house of Israel " (Matt. xv. 24). 

"They that are in health need not a phy- 
sician, but they that are ill, etc. For I am 
not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt, 
ix. 12, 13, i. 21 ; I. Tim. i. 15). 

He frequently pardoned sinners their offences ! 
Magdalen (Luke vii. 47), the woman in adul- 
tery (John viii. 11), the thief on the Crosf 
(Luke xxiii. 43), the man sick with the palsy 
(Matt. ix. 2). In the last instance He in- 
sists on this power of forgiveness as Son of 
Man, despite the objection of the scribes and 
their accusation of blasphemy (Matt. ix. 3), 
and performs a miracle to prove it. " But that 
you may know that the Son of Man hath 
power on earth to forgive sins (then said He to 
the man sick of the palsy), Arise, 'take up 
thy bed and go into thy house/ 9 

Remembering, then, that Christ was the Son 
of God (" All power is given to Me in heaven 
and in earth,' ■ Matt, xxviii. 18), and that His 
mission was the salvation of sinners, the mean- 
ing of His words is evident. As the Father 



376 



The Question Box. 



hath sent Me to pardon sin, I also send you 
clothed with My divine authority to pardon sin 
in My Name. Receive the Holy Ghost, the Third 
Person of the Blessed Trinity, to whom is es- 
pecially ascribed the sanctifying of the souls of 
men from sin ("the charity of God is poured 
forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is 
given to us ") that you may give that spirit to 
repentant sinners. If you forgive a sinner, he 
is really forgiven by Me; if you refuse for- 
giveness, I will refuse also. " Whose sins you 
shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; whose 
sins you shall retain, they are retained.' 1 t 

This ratifying of the Apostolic judgment in 
heaven is also declared by our Saviour on an- 
other occasion: "Whatsoever you shall bind 
upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven ; and 
whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall 
be loosed also in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18). 

Did we not know the wonderful power of 
prejudice to read into the Scriptures its own 
views and theories, we could not under- 
stand how any believer in the word of God 
could deny that Jesus Christ gave to the Apos- 
tles the power of forgiving sins in His Name. 

Indeed, the Scriptures are so clear that some 
have granted the Apostles had the power of 
pardoning sin, but they hold that the power 
died with them. But this is unreasonable. 
Useless indeed would have been so mighty a 



Penance. 



377 



power if its exercise were to be limited to the 
sinners of the first century. No ; as long as 
sin will last — that is, until the end of the world 
— so long must this God- given remedy for sin 
exist. The pardoning power was not an extra- 
ordinary gift, as the gift of tongues, prophec}^ 
or miracles (I. Cor. xii: 10), but the ordinary 
and necessary power to continue Christ's work 
for the salvation of souls. He came to teach, 
and to pardon sin ; the Apostles are to teach and 
to pardon sin for ever in His Name (Matt, xxviii. 
20 ; John xx. 21-26). Every other way of ob- 
taining forgiveness is now superseded by the 
Apostolic priesthood, whose giving or denial of 
absolution is by God's promise confirmed by 
Himself in heaven. 

How is this power to be exercised? Evi- 
• dently this two-fold power of forgiving and re- 
taining sin implies a judgment based on the 
knowledge of each individual case. The Apos- 
tle or his successor must have reasons to for- 
give, viz., a supernatural sorrow on the sinner's 
part for all grievous sins committed, ^with a 
firm purpose to sin no more ; and reasons to 
refuse forgiveness, namely, the lack of proper 
dispositions of sorrow, shown, for example, by 
refusal to restore ill-gotten goods, to pardon an 
enemy, or to avoid the proximate occasions of 
sin. This necessarily supposes full knowledge 
of the state of the penitent's conscience, which 



378 



The Question Box. 



is possible ouly by personal acknowledgment, 
or confession. (Council of Trent, Sess. xiv. 
ch. 5-) 

The Catholic interpretation of John xx. will, 
perhaps, be more clear to you by a comparison. 

Suppose, to-day, that in a prison of the 
Philippines a number of prisoners convicted of 
various crimes under the Spanish rule were 
still confined, and that there was question of 
the justice or the exceeding severity of their 
sentences. President Roosevelt, informed of 
this, determines to send to Manila twelve com- 
missioners with full powers to investigate the 
charges made. You hear him say in the White 
House to these twelve men : 1 * All necessary 
power in this case is given me by the people 
of these United States. As they have chosen 
me to represent them, so I have chosen you to • 
act in my name and with my authorit}^. I, as 
President, possess the pardoning power over 
crime. Receive your commission ; whose 
crimes you shall pardon, they are pardoned 
by me; whose crimes you shall not pardon, 
they are not pardoned by me." 

What would honestly be your inference from 
these words ? 1 At once you would say : i . 
That these twelve men had received from the 
President the power of pardoning; 2. That 
they had sole and absolute control of the crimi- 
nal cases in question, and that the power of all 



Penance. % 379 

other judges immediately ceased on their ap- 
pointment ; 3. That their power could not be 
rightly exercised without a thorough investi- 
gation of each and every case ; 4. That their 
authority would last until the last " guilty " or 
" not guilty 99 had been pronounced. 

So the Apostolic commission supposes equally 
that : 1 . That the twelve Apostles received from 
God the power of pardoning ; 2. That the Jew- 
ish way of pardon was superseded by the Chris- 
tian; 3. That the exercise of their [power ne- 
cessitates confession; 4. That their authority 
will last until the death of the last sinner. 

Catholics, moreover, are not left to the vary- 
ing, contradictory views of human private 
judgment, but have the divine, infallible wit- 
ness of the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xiv.), 
which voices the constant Christian tradition 
from the beginning. (For the testimonies of 
the Fathers read " Faith of Catholics,' ' vol. ill 
pp. 36-113; " Manual of Catholic Theology/ 9 
vol. ii. pp. 466-474. 

One striking patristic argument is to compare 
the confession of sins in the spiritual life to the 
confession of one's bodily sickness to a phy- 
sician. Says St. Basil: "The confession of 
sins follows the same rule as the manifestation 
of bodily infirmities. As men, therefore, do 
not disclose their bodily infirmities to every 
one, nor to a few at random, but to such as 



38o 



The Question Box. 



are skilful in the cure of tliein, so also ought 
the confession of sins to be made to those whc 
are able to apply a remedy " (Reg. Brev, 228). 

The mind of the early Church is seen by 
the condemnation of the Novatians of Rome in 
the third century. They held that those who 
had fallen away during the persecution of 
Decius and who had offered sacrifice to idols 
could not be pardoned, w r hereas the Church 
then as always maintained that her power of 
pardoning extended to all repentant sinners 
without exception (Alzog, Church History, 
vol. i. p. 429 et seq ) 

Indeed, when Christians reflect for a moment 
that the Saviour established the sacrament of 
baptism for the cleansing of original sin in 
which we had no personal share, ought they 
not naturally expect that He would have in- 
stituted the sacrament of penance for the cleans- 
ing of those mortal sins committed after bap- 
tism whereof we are personally guilty? If 
Christ Jesus gave us the certainty of admis- 
sion into His friendship by baptism, is it not 
becoming His divine wisdom to give His peo- 
ple certainty of their return after having again 
become His enemies? 

What degree of power do you priests claim in 
confession ? Do you really pardon sin, or merely 
Intercede with God for the sinner ? 



Penance. 381 

The Catholic priest pardons in the name of 
Christ, as his minister and ambassador. 

"He hath placed in us the word of recon- 
ciliation. For Christ, therefore, we are am- 
bassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. 
For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to 
God" (II. Con v. 20). 

" Let a man so account of us as of the min- 
isters of Christ, and the dispensers of the mys- 
teries of God!' (I. Cor. iv. 1). 

Do priests ever refuse to forgive sins? If 
they do, what happens then? 

A priest as Christ's ambassador of pardon 
cannot refuse forgiveness unless he perceives a 
lack of necessary dispositions of sorrow on the 
part of the penitent ; for example, if the sinner 
refuse to make good an injury done, to avoid 
the proximate occasion of his sin, to accept 
the penance imposed, or to use the means of 
grace and perseverance in well-doing. The 
power given the Apostles was a two- fold power 
of forgiving or refusing forgiveness: "Whose 
sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ; 
and whose sins you shall retain, they are re- 
tained V .(John xx. 23). The denial of pardon 
by the priesthood means denial on the part of 
God, as the Saviour says clearly: "Whatso- 
ever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound 
also in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18). 



382 The Question Box. 

Is it not blasphemy to declare that a mere man 
can forgive my offences against God ? 

Catholics do not confess to any man indif- 
ferently, but only to a priest, whom St. Paul 
calls "the minister of Christ, and the dis- 
penser (steward) of the mysteries of God" (I. 
Cor. iv. 1). The priest does not forgive as 
man, but as the representative and the ambas- 
sador of Jesus Christ. "For what I forgave, 
if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes 
have I done it, in the person of Christ" (II. 
Cor. ii. 10). "We are, therefore, ambassa- 
dors for Christ ; God, as it were, exhorting by 
us. For Christ, we beseech you, be ye recon- 
ciled to God" (II. Cor. v. 20). 

This indeed is the very objection urged 
against our Saviour when He forgave, as the 
Son of Man, the man sick of the palsy (Mark 
ii. 3-12). " Why," said the Jews, "does this 
man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who 
can forgive sins but God only ? 1 7 The ene- 
mies of Christ Jesus denied His divinity, and 
therefore His power of forgiving sins. The 
enemies of Christ's Church, denying its divin- 
ity to-day, logically must deny it the power to 
forgive sins, delegated it by Jesus Christ the 
day of His resurrection (John xx. 19-23). 



Why not confess to God directly? Can God 
abrogate His power ? 



Penance. 383 

Because Jesus Christ taught us to go to God 
indirectly through the ministry which He es- 
tablished. Why does not a soldier report for 
duty directly to the commanding general? 
Why does not a citizen pay his taxes directly 
to the governor of his State? 

God does not abrogate His power, but dele- 
gates it to men who forgive in the name and 
with the authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God. li For Christ, therefore, we are ambassa- 
dors M (z. e. y with delegated power: II. Cor. 
v. 20). 

And do we not confess all the better to God 
when aided by His own ministry to do so sor- 
rowfully and hopefully? Remember, too, that 
Catholics begin their confession by saying, "I 
confess to Almighty God and to you, Father." 

Does not the confessional give the priest too 
much power? I object to outside interference 
with my private affairs c 

The Catholic priest undoubtedly claims the 
right to lay down the moral law authoritatively 
in the sacrament of penance, and to enforce 
obedience thereto under penalty of the denial 
of absolution. His is the power to forgive sins 
in the name of Tesus Christ, and to advise, 
warn, encourage, and help souls in their daily 
struggle against sin and temptation. He has 
no right to pry into your private aftairs, or to 



384 



The Question Box. 



interfere in family matters ; he has no right 
whatsoever to question you unless with regard 
to sin or the danger thereof. 

Do you object to the interference of the state 
when, in the best interests of society, it enforces 
the law against criminals ? Then you should 
not object to the Catholic priesthood when, in 
the best interests of the individual, it enforces 
the law of Christ against evil and the evil-doer. 

How can a priest listen year after year to sins 
without his own mind becoming corrupted ? 

Because God gives His ministers great and 
special graces to keep their hearts pure, daily 
Mass and their own weekly confession being 
the chief. Because, again, the priest listens as 
another Christ, with sympathy and love for the 
repentant sinner, who is causing 4 ' more joy in 
heaven than the ninety-nine just that need not 
penance n (Xuke xv. 7). The more he under- 
stands the malice of sin and the more he realizes 
its evil effects upon the sinner, the more he 
hates it as the great curse of the people of God. 
Does the judge on the bench or the physician 
in the sick-room become corrupted because both 
come in daily contact with sin and the effects of 
sin? No, the heart becomes corrupted only by 
consenting to personal temptation. 

Is a priest always bound to keep secret what 
lae hears in confession ? 



Penance. 385 

m II II ■ I «T 

If a priest knew through confession the real 
murderer, and an innocent man was to hang for 
it, would not common justice demand that he tell 
it? 

A priest is bound, even at the cost of 
life itself, never to betray in any way what 
he has heard in the secrecy of the confessional. 
Frequently priests have gone to prison rather 
than betray this trust, although most courts re- 
spect it on the mere basis of natural law. The 
confidence of millions of the Catholic people 
the world over and their frequent reception of 
the sacrament of Penance are ample proof that 
the Catholic priesthood has, through God's 
grace, been ever loyal to their trust. 

One of the reasons why confession will never 
become the general practice in any Protestant 
church— for example, the Protestant Episcopal 
— lies in the fact that its ministers are not 
bound by any divine law to keep secret the sins 
confided to them, and fail to realize their re- 
sponsibility. 

The absolute secrecy of the 'seal of confes- 
sion is also recognized by all the Oriental 
Christian sects, the Russian Church being the 
one exception because of its utter subserviency 
to the state. 

Was not the practice of confession introduced 
by the IV. Council of Lateran in A. D. 1215 ? 



386 



The Question Box. 



By no means. This Council supposes the 
practice of confession everywhere existing, for 
it declares that ''all the faithful, men and 
women, shall confess their sins, at least once a 
year, to a priest approved by the Church.' 1 
The very fact of passing a law as to a detail 
of time, which was at once universally recog- 
nized as binding, proves conclusively that con- 
fession was universally practised. And we 
have witness after witness for this fact in the 
writings of the early Fathers (" Faith of Catho- 
lics, " vol. iii. pp. 1-129). , 

Do you honestly thinly that such an institu- 
tion, requiring of all Christians, from the Pope 
downwards, the humiliation of kneeling before 
a fellow-man to tell even the most hidden sins 
of the heart, could have been imposed on the 
Christian world so quietly and so easily that 
history says not a single word of any opposi- 
tion thereto? Imagine to-day the Church of 
England attempting to compel all her church 
members to follow out as a binding obligation 
the views of the High- Church party on this 
point. Why, the pulpit and the press would 
re-echo the protest the world over. 

Do you honestly think that if, as so many 
Protestants have declared, auricular confession 
is an invention of the Catholic priesthood, that 
popes, bishops, and priests who had the ability 
to invent such an institution, would not have 



Penance. 



387 



considered the terrible burden they were plac- 
ing upon themselves ? For, humanly speaking, 
the hearing of confessions, although it has its 
consoling side in the winning back of thou» 
sands of souls to God after lives of sin, is one 
of the hardest trials in the priest's ministry. 
To sit for hours — twelve sometimes in one day 
— in fetid air, a close box, inhaling the bad 
breaths of hundreds, and hearkening to the 
sorrows and sins of men until the heart is sick 
— this surely is not an occupation that any 
human authority could devise, or any human 
power compel men to submit to. 

Remember, too, that it often means a hurried 
drive of many miles in the most bitter weather, 
in the blackest midnight, over almost impass- 
able roads, to hear the confession of some poor 
dying soul; or again, a visit to the hospital, 
the pest-house, and the leper asylum ; or again, 
the going from soldier to soldier on the firing 
line of a field of battle. A priest in Northern 
Iowa told me not long since of many a drive of 
fifty and seventy-five miles to hear the con- 
fession of the dying when the thermometer 
registered twenty- five degrees below zero, in the 
old days, thirty years ago, his parish embracing 
then an area of some hundred miles or more of 
Iowa and Minnesota. Will you tell me this is 
of man's invention ? 



388 



The Question Box, 



If, as you claim, you possess the Apostles* 
pardoning power, why not their power of work- 
ing miracles? 

Did not Jesus tell His Apostles to heal the sick 
as well as to pardon sin, and preach the gospel ? 
Do you priests claim to heal diseases? " He 
gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast 
them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and 
all manner of disease " (Matt. x. i). " Heal the 
sick, cleanse the leper, raise the dead, cast out 
devils; freely you have received, freely give 77 
{Matt. x. 8). Read also Luke ix. 2, x. 9; 
John xiv. 12. 

Jesus Christ came to teach men the truth of 
God and by His death win for them God's 
grace and friendship, so that loving Him, and 
the brethren for His sake, they might save their 
souls. The Apostles were given for ever all 
things necessary to carry on this divine work 
of teaching and saving souls — v. g.> the power 
to teach (Matt, xxviii.; Mark xvi.)> to bap- 
tize {ibid), to pardon sin (John xx.), to offer 
sacrifice (L,uke xxii.) 

The Apostles were given for themselves, as 
an extraordinary gift, the power of winning by 
miracles countless Jews and pagans whom 
Christ knew would be won to His gospel in no 
other way. 

Christ did not come to heal the bodies ^)f 
men, but their souls ; the Church of Chrisf is 



Penance. 



389 



not a divine school of medicine or surgery, 
but a divine society to teach men the doctrines 
and commandments of the Son of God. The 
gift of healing is not at all necessary for this 
purpose. 

Of course, there have been in the history 
of the Catholic Church many saintly men and 
women who have worked by the power of God 
wonderful works, as He promised (John xiv. 
12) ; but that was a special, personal gift 
that thereby souls might be won to Christ, 
and not the ordinary prerogative of every 
Christian. ; 

Again, God frequently works miracles 
through the ordinary administration of the 
Sacrament of Extreme Unction, which Christ 
established for the cure of the body as well as 
of the soul, and by the sacrifice of the Mass 
offered up by the priests of the New Law. 
But miracles are exceptional things, and are 
not a part of God's ordinary providential 
working. 

The Catholic Church protests alike against 
the rationalistic denial of all miracles whatso- 
ever despite the evidence, and the modern 
current superstitions of decadent Protestant- 
ism, which would declare every Christian a 
wonder-worker. 

Does not confession weaken character? 



390 The Question Box, 

Is not confession an incentive to sin by mak- 
ing forgiveness so easy? 

Do not Catholics go to confession, and then 
commit the same sin over again ? 

On the contrary, we have already seen that 
certain conditions are absolutely required, be- 
fore God will ratify the absolution of the con- 
fessor. Pardon is not granted, for instance, to 
the drunkard who has a mere natural sorrow 
because of his degradation and the poverty and 
shame of his wife and children ; to the thief 
who has no intention of giving back the money 
he has stolen ; to the impure man who will not 
avoid the proximate occasion of his sin ; to the 
bitter, angry soul who refuses to forgive the 
offending brother, etc. 

We know perfectly well that human nature 
is weak, and human passions strong ; that the 
world of wicked men and women is full of 
temptations ; that the flesh rebels against the 
Spirit (Rom. vii. 23), and the devil does his 
best to tempt us (I. Pet. v. 8). But if a 
Catholic yield to these temptations it is not in 
virtue of the sacrament he has received, but 
because he is false to the sacramental promise 
he made to God to sin no more. 

We are willing also to grant that there have 
been abuses ; that some Catholics go to their 
confession in a mechanical, perfunctory sort of 
a way, and do not realize the dignity and 



Penance, 



39i 



sacredness of this divine sacrament. But is 
there any good thing in the world that sinful 
man has not sometimes abused? The sacra- 
ment of matrimony, intended to sanctify and 
bless the pure union of man and woman, has 
often been made a mere tool for worldly advan- 
tage or a mere instrument of lust, as divorce 
statistics show. The sacrament of Baptism, es- 
tablished to initiate the Christian into the 
Church of God, has been used to serve an un- 
believer's worldly aims. The Bible has been 
abused by every false prophet from the begin- 
ning, in imitation of Satan (Matt. iv. 6). 
The press, the pulpit, the theatre, the stock 
exchange, inventions, the arts — all these have 
been abused. Would you, then, abolish them 
altogether ? 

The history of the sacrament of Penance is 
proof positive of its being one of the greatest 
incentives to virtue the world knows of. Could 
it have survived during these nineteen hundred 
years if it were indeed an incentive to sin? 
Would millions of the most intelligent men and 
women still bend the knee ? It is impossible to 
think so. The corruption of morals that every- 
where followed the abolition of confession in 
the sixteenth century made many of the Re- 
formers wish for its re-establishment. Voltaire 
wrote in the eighteenth century : 1 ' The ene- 
mies of the Roman Church, who have opposed 



392 



The Question Box. 



so beneficial an institution, have taken from 
man the greatest restraint that can be put upon 
crime" ("Diet. Phil.," art. Catech. du Cure). 

If confession were an incentive to sin, how is 
it that the most hardened sinners never go, and 
the best Catholics are seen frequently at the 
sacred tribunal? If it weakened character, 
how then do you account for its reformation of 
the habitual drunkard, its recall of the penitent 
Magdalen, and the comfort and peace it gives 
the condemned criminal? If it encouraged 
crime, why would Catholic fathers and mothers 
rejoice so much in seeing their boys and girls 
go frequently to confession, and be sad of heart 
when they begin to neglect this duty? If it 
made Catholics worse, how then do you ex- 
plain the fact that Protestants often desire for 
their servants and employees Catholics who go 
regularly to confession ? 

The fact is evident. The sacrament of Pen- 
ance is a guide to the doubting, a comfort to 
the afflicted, an encouragement to the weak, a 
warning to the young, a strong arm to the 
wavering, an adviser to the ignorant, a menace 
to the hardened sinner, a joy to the truly re- 
pentant ; it is Jesus Christ speaking to the 
world: <c Come to Me, all you that labor and 
are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matt, 
xi. 28). 

Why, sometimes non- Catholics, tormented by 



Penance, 393 

the anguish of uticonfessed sin, have desired to 
receive the sacrament, and finding this impossi- 
ble, have craved the privilege of unburdening 
their conscience to the trusted Catholic priest. 

What provision does the Catholic Church make 
for a Catholic who cannot reach a priest in order 
to confess? 

How are non-Catholics forgiven their sins? 

God does not require the impossible. A 
Catholic, therefore, in danger of death, and 
unable to obey the law of confession, is bound 
to make an act of perfect sorrow for all sins 
committed, namely, an act of sorrow from the 
highest supernatural motive — the love of God for 
Himself alone. A non-Catholic, who is invinci- 
bly ignorant of the Catholic Church, and the 
sacrament of Penance instituted by Christ, is 
pardoned in the same way. 

Would not a confession to the one offended or 
wronged have a better moral effect upon the 
sinner than confessing to a priest ? Would that 
not be a better proof of sorrow? 

Catholics confess to the priesthood of Christ 
because they know the Sacrament of Penance 
to be a divine institution, and that obedience to 
Christ in this matter is evident proof of their 
sorrow and God's forgiveness. 

Our questioner seems to forget that God is 



394 The Question Box. 

offended when we injure our neighbor in 
thought, w r ord, or deed, and He has prescribed 
clearly the way of pardon. Remember, too, 
that a Catholic who has grievously wronged his 
neighbor in character or property cannot be 
pardoned in the Sacrament of Penance, if he 
refuse to make good the injury done. 

Again, there are certain sins against God, 
and against one's self, as unbelief, blasphemy, 
lust, in which our neighbor does not figure. 

How can sin be pardoned by merely telling it ? 

It cannot be, according to the teaching of 
the Catholic Church. Judas was not par- 
doned, although he confessed his crime (Matt, 
xxvii. 4). Confession indeed is only one of 
the three parts of the sacrament of Penance, 'and 
by no means the most essential, the other two 
being contrition and satisfaction. Without con- 
trition, or "sorrow and detestation of sin, with 
a firm purpose to sin no more" (Council of 
Trent), there is no forgiveness possible. The 
Catholic must have a true, intense sorrow for 
each and every mortal sin he has committed ; 
the motive of his sorrow must be supernatural, 
resting not on the natural consequences of his 
sin, but on the fear of hell, the loss of heaven, 
or the love of God and Jesus Christ. He 
must hate and detest sin as the greatest evil 
in the world, and sincerely promise to avoid it 



Penance. 



395 



and tlie occasions thereof for the future. He 
must be ready also to make good the past by 
repairing any injury he may have done his 
neighbor in his character or his property, and 
satisfy God in union with the infinite satis- 
faction of Jesus Christ by performing the pen- 
ance enjoined by his confessor. Otherwise the 
mere confession or telling of sin is of no avail 
for pardon, the absolution of God's priest is 
null and void, and the penitent but adds the 
guilt of sacrilege to his original guilt. 

Is not confession degrading and opposed to 
Christian manliness and independence ? 

On the contrary, it is the noblest act of a 
true man and a true Christian to conquer his 
lower and sinful self by a heartfelt acknowledg- 
ment of sins committed. It is indeed humiliat- 
ing, but true humility is no degradation, but a 
Christ -like virtue : " Learn of Me because I am 
meek, and humble of heart' ' (Matt. xi. 29); 
especially calculated to conquer the pride of 
sin. Suppose you had two boys, who had 
seriously violated your commands. One gives 
no hint of his disobedience, and the other can- 
not retire to rest that night until he has sobbed 
out everything. Would you consider this con- 
fession degrading? Nay, rather the common 
expression is " Own up and be a man." When 
a man convicted of murder confesses his crime, 



396 



The Question Box, 



do you consider him less the man for that 
reason ? . 

The best proof, however, is the fact that 
the noblest and most perfect types of men in 
the world are those seen frequently at the feet 
of a Catholic priest, crying out to God, as the 
publican in the Gospel: "O God, be merci- 
ful to me a sinner ' ' (I^uke xviii. 9-14). The 
Saviour indeed praised the humble publican 
who confessed, rather than the proud Phari- 
see who only boasted of his good deeds. " This 
man went down into his house justified rather 
than the other.' ' 

I have often heard that Catholics have to pay 
money for confession ? Is this true ? 

You ought not to believe all that you hear ; 
for, as the Scriptures say, " a faithful wit- 
ness will not lie, but a deceitful witness utter- 
eth a lie" (Prov. xiv. 5). I remember a Prot- 
estant in a country town once saying that he 
had heard the regular tax for confession was 
two dollars. I told him I had in one week 
heard upwards of eight hundred confessions 
($1,600), which indeed would yield quite a 
comfortable income. No ; it is not true, but 
a calumny due either to ignorance or malice. 
A Protestant gentleman in New York once told 
one of the Paulist Fathers that his servant had 
demanded money from him more than once to 



Penance. 



397 



pay the priest in confession. "How then," 
says he, " can you deny the fact ? " He never 
thought of the alternative, that the servant in 
question simply lied, as he could readily have 
found out had he inquired of her whereabouts. 
To demand money for confession would be the 
grievous sin of simony. The laws of the 
Church are most strict on this point, some 
bishops even threatening with suspension any 
confessor receiving money in the confessional 
due for ordinary debts because of the false 
impression this might give to non-Catholics. 

Why not allow confession to be optional, as in 
our ( Anglican) Church? 

Because, if, as many High-Church Angli- 
cans admit, according to the teaching of their 
prayer-book in the Communion Sendee, and 
the office for the Visitation of the Sick, Christ 
left the power of absolving from sins with His 
Church, then Christians by the' very fact have 
no other way of obtaining forgiveness. Once 
an Apostolic body exists in the world whose 
pardon of sin on earth means pardon in heaven 
by God, and whose retention of sin means re- 
tention by God (John xx.), there is no more 
possibility of a Christian' s being free to reject 
this sacrament than he is free to reject the 
sacrament of Baptism. The acceptance of the 
sacrament of Penance by the High-Church 



393 



The Question Box. 



party rests merely on the Protestant principle 
of private judgment, which, exercised by other 
members of the same Church, rejects the doc- 
trine as contrary to the Word of God. 

Do Catholics believe in " conversion,' \ or 
" change of heart" ? 

Conversion with Catholics means : 
i st. The conversion from sin, whereby a man 
asks God pardon for his offences in the sacra- 
ment of Penance, and promises to sin no more ; 
and 2d. The conversion from error, whereby a 
man renounces a false religion to embrace the 
one true Church of Jesus Christ. 

Both conversions proceed from man's intel- 
lect and will, helped by God's grace to realize 
and to reject sin and error as hateful in God's 
sight. 

Catholics do not find any warrant in reason 
or Christianity for the emotional conversion of 
a Protestant revival, or the superstitious ex- 
pectancy of a sudden ' ' change of heart," 
or " getting religion" which private judg- 
ment has begotten in simple souls, "tossed 
to and fro, and carried about with every wind 
of doctrine" (Eph. iv. 14). How frequently 
infidelity is born of the rational appreciation 
that revival religion cannot be of God. 

1 never could kneel down to a iellow-maxi and 



Penance, 



399 



tell my sins. That is asking too much of flesh 
and blood. 

The true Christian should not ask, when 
there is question of a doctrine or commandment 
of Christ, Is this hard to believe or obey? but 
simply : Did Jesus Christ teach or command it? 

If Jesus Christ established the sacrament of 
Penance, and commanded all Christians to 
henceforth obtain forgiveness of an Apostolic 
priesthood, who were to pardon until the end 
of the world in His name, the faithful soul 
should obey Him without question. 

Remember, too, that the priest is prepared 
after many years of careful study and prayer 
for his divine ambassadorship, He has Christ's 
example and love for sinners set before him by 
men well versed in the spiritual life, so that a 
penitent can kneel before him with confidence. 
(For an idea of the Catholic priesthood, read 
Cardinal Manning's "Eternal Priesthood,' ' 
and Cardinal Gibbons' "Ambassador of 
Christ.") 

You find it difficult to kneel down to another 
man. Would you expect God to pardon you 
without the slightest suffering or mortification ? 
Is not the sinner's pride to be cured by the ex- 
ercise of the opposite virtue of humility ? It is 
hard to acknowledge to a friend that we are in 
the wrong, but it is Christian. 

We must not, however, exaggerate the diffi- 



400 



The Question Box, 



culty of confession. The sacrament of Penance 
is indeed intolerably hard to the hardened 
Catholic sinner who does not desire to give up 
his wicked life, but it is full of joy and comfort 
to the repentant ones, who experience by it the 
blessing of the restored friendship of God. It 
seems very strange and trying to the non- 
Catholic who has never tasted of its divine 
sweetness, and yet converts soon learn to love 
it. "Father, it is not so hard after all" — so 
hundreds have said to me after the indefinable 
dread of their first confession was over. 



INDULGENCES. 

Why does the Catholic priest impose penances 
for sins already pardoned? Why do Catholics 
think they can atone for their sins by fasting, 
prayers, etc.? Do you believe that you can add 
to the all-sufficient atonement of Christ ? When 
God forgives the sinner, does He not instantly 
free him from all deserved punishment at the 
same time, as in the case of the dying thief: 
"To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' 9 
(Luke xxiii. 43) ? 

After confession, the penitent is asked to per- 
form works of penance that he might better 
realize his guilt before God, and thereby pay 
the debt of temporal punishment still due to his 
forgiven sins. The Council of Trent declares 



Indulgences. 



401 



that these penances make the sinner more care- 
ful for the future, substitute for his vices the 
contrary virtues, and prevent him from falling 
into more grievous sins (Sess. xiv. ch. viii.) 

Frequently the Scriptures declare that God 
may forgive the repentant sinner — that is, free 
him from the guilt of sin and its eternal punish- 
ment—without freeing him from temporal pun- 
ishment. Thus in the case of Adam (Wisdom 
x. 2; Gen. iii. 17-20), the rebellious Jews in 
the desert (Num. xiv. 20-23), Moses (Num. xx. 
12; Deut. xxxii. 51, 52), David (II. Kings xi. 
xii. xxiv.), etc. 

David, for example, having repented for his" 
murder and adulter}-, was forgiven by God, and 
yet punished by the death of the child he loved. 
" I have sinned against the Lord. . . . The 
Lord also hath taken away thy sin ; thou shalt 
not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given 
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blas- 
pheme, for this thing the child that is born of 
thee shall surely die" (II. Kings xii. 13, 14). 

Is it not strange to find Bible Christians de- 
nying that the sinner may atone for the tem- 
poral punishment due his sins, when no doc- 
trine is taught more clearly in the Scriptures? 
(Jonas iii.;- II. Paral. (Chron.) xxxiii. 12, 13; 
Ecclus. iii. 33; Dan. iv. 24; Luke xi. 41), 

Catholics do not believe that any man or all 
men could ever satisfy for one grievous sin 



402 



The Question Box. 



against God. One alone, who was true God 
and true man, Jesus Christ, satisfied for all the 
sins of the world. He, according to Catholic 
dogma, is the only Mediator ; " for there is one 
God, and one Mediator of God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus " (I. Tim. ii. 5) . But we be- 
lieve that by the help of God's grace, which 
Jesus Christ died to gain, we can apply to our- 
selves the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, through 
the sacraments of baptism and penance. This 
in no way interferes with the infinite atonement 
of God's only Son. "Neither is this satisfac- 
tion which we discharge for our sins so much 
•our own as not to be Jesus Christ's, for we who 
can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves, 
can do all things with the co-operation of Him 
who strengthens us. Thus man hath not 
wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in 
Christ ; in whom we live, in whom we merit, in 
whom we satisfy " (Trent., Sess. xiv. ch. viii.) 

As for the thief on the cross, it is not evident 
that he went instantly to heaven ; for Catholics, 
believing that Christ's soul immediately after 
His death went down to L,imbo, to announce 
to the souls there detained the glad tidings of 
the redemption (I. Pet. iii. 19), declare that 
paradise in this passage does not mean heaven 
at all. But granted that it did, a miracle 
wrought by the Son of God as a sign of His 
exceeding great mercy and love for sinners, is 



Indulgences. 



403 



not to be regarded as the general law of God's 
working, especially wlien the Scriptures in 
many other passages declare the contrary. Of 
course, Catholics believe that God may at any 
time remit the guilt of sin, and all the punish- 
ment due thereunto, just as he does always in 
baptism ; but we say that is not the ordinary 
law of His providence, as taught by His holy 
Scriptures and His infallible Church. 

How can your Church be God's Church, when 
it grants permission or an indulgence to commit 
sin ? 

This old fable of Protestant tradition still 
lingers in the mind of many Protestants, al- 
though it has been refuted time and time again. 
Many will remember how Cardinal Newman 
nailed the calumny with regard to the cata- 
logue of sins fastened on the door of the Church 
of St. Gudule's, Brussels ("Present Posi- 
tion of Catholics,'' pp. 108-118). The cata- 
logue, written in French, turned out after in- 
vestigation to be the price paid, not for sins but 
for the use 0/ chairs. And yet a Catholic law- 
yer had but lately to correct the same calumny 
repeated by a correspondent of a Chicago daily 
with regard to a South American bishop grant- 
ing an indulgence to commit sin. So persis- 
tent is the unthinking or malicious disregarding 
of the eighth commandment. 



404 



The Question Box. 



Catholics know that an indulgence is in no 
sense whatever the remission of sin past, pres- 
ent, or future, nor does it do away with the 
eternal punishment due to sin. The most ele- 
mental concept of God renders it impossible to 
imagine Him giving a person permission to 
commit sin. If our objector would take the 
trouble to read any catechism of our Church 
he would find it clearly stated, that unless a 
Catholic is free from mortal sin and in God's 
grace and friendship, he cannot in the slightest 
degree gain an indulgence ("Baltimore Cate- 
chism/ ' lesson xxi. questions i and 2). 

An indulgence is the remission by the Church 
of the whole or part of the temporal punish- 
ment due to sin, valid before God because of 
the divine authority Christ gave His Church 
(Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). It is gained only 
by one in a state of grace, in virtue of the ap- 
plication of the superabundant merits of Christ 
and His saints to all of the Communion of 
Saints. 

Thus, in the first days of Christianity, the 
Church imposed upon repentant sinners severe 
public penances, such as exclusion from the 
church service, denial of the Eucharist, fasting 
on bread and water for a term of years, for the 
grievous crimes of murder, apostasy, surren- 
dering the Bible to the pagan persecutors, and 
the like. We read, however, that frequently 



Indulgences. 



405 



the bishops remitted, wholly or partially, these 
penitential works, if a penitent manifested ex- 
traordinary sorrow, if a persecution was immi- 
nent, if one of the martyrs about to die re- 
quested it, if the penitent was unable to under- 
go the penance because of bodily infirmities, or 
if death were imminent. This is essentially the 
Catholic doctrine of indulgences to-day. 

From the eighth century this public peniten- 
tial discipline was gradually done away with, 
until it disappeared in the thirteenth 
century. Penitents who manifested sincere 
sorrow were absolved before the penance en- 
joined was performed. The severe public pen- 
ances were commuted into prayers, almsgiving 
to churches, monasteries, and hospitals, pil- 
grimages, taking the cross to free Christ's sep- 
ulchre from the Saracen (Council of Clermont, 
a. d. 109S, can. 2), making the Jubilee (a. d. 
1300), etc. 

This divine power exercised by the Catholic 
Church with regard to the temporal punish- 
ment decreed by divine law to the sinner, is 
somewhat akin to the power which every well- 
ordered state exercises for the common good of 
society, by remitting wholly or in part the pun- 
ishment decreed by the civil law to the crimi- 
nal. Thus our President, or governor, has in 
certain cases the right to grant a complete par- 
don to criminals by law condemned to life inl- 



The Question Box, 



prisonment. And in every prison we find the 
State remitting part of a criminal's sentence for 
good behavior. 

Just as the State possesses the right to con- 
demn or acquit the criminal, and to regulate in 
every way the punishment due his crime, so the 
Catholic Church possesses the divine right to 
pardon sin or retain it (John xx.), and to remit 
wholly or in part the punishment it deserves in 
the sight of God (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18), — all 
according to the penitent's interior dispositions 
towards God. (L,epicier, * ' Indulgences " ; 
Thurston, M The Holy Year " ; Bellarmin, " De 
Indulgentiis " ; Beringer, " Indulgences. ") 

Where in the Bible are indulgences mentioned ? 

Did not the doctrine of indulgences originate in 
the year 1200? 

By what authority does your Church grant in- 
dulgences ? 

By the divine power that Jesus Christ gave 
to Peter and the Apostles in union w r ith Him 
to free the repentant sinner from everything 
that hindered his entrance into heaven, namely, 
sin and the eternal and temporal punishment 
due to sin. 

" Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
it shall be loosed also in heaven " (Matt. xvi. 
19); "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth 
shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 



Indulgences. 407 

18) ; " Whose sins you shall forgive, they are 
forgiven them" (John xx. 23). 

St. Paul exercised this power upon the in- 
cestuous Corinthian, whom he first excom- 
municated and then pardoned in the name of 
Christ after he had given proof of heartfelt 
sorrow. "I indeed, absent in body, but pres- 
ent in spirit, have already judged ... to 
deliver such a one to Satan for the destruc- 
tion of the flesh,' ' etc. (I. Cor. v. 3-5). " So 
that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive 
him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one 
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. . . , 
What I have pardoned, if I have pardoned 
anything, for your sakes I have done it in the 
person of Christ" (II. Cor. ii. 6-10). Catho- 
lics believe that many members of the Church 
— for instance, virgins, martyrs, confessors, and 
countless saints — have performed penances far 
exceeding what was due their sins, and that 
their merits in union with the infinite merits 
of Jesus Christ form a spiritual treasury, which 
the Apostles and their successors can draw 
from to pay the debt of temporal punishment 
for all who belong to the Communion of 
Saints. 

" For as the body is one, and hath many 
members ; and all the members of the body, 
whereas they are many, yet are one body, so 
also is Christ ; . . . and if one member 



408 



The Question Box. 



• suffer anything, all the members suffer with 
it ; or if one member glory, all the members re- 
joice with it" (I. "Cor. xii. 12-26). 

To me indulgences are destructive of true re- 
ligion, by freeing one from the necessity of re- 
pentance (Luke xiii. 5). 

Do not indulgences make Catholics trust too 
much in externals, set prayers, visiting churches, 
processions, etci* 

Why should not a man suffer all the punish- 
ment due his sins? 

Inasmuch as indulgences necessarily sup- 
pose on a sinner's part heartfelt, sorrowful con- 
fession of all his grievous sins, and his resto- 
ration to God's grace and friendship, they can- 
not help fostering true love of Jesus Christ. 

By what right does a man judge his neigh- 
bor guilty of externalism, or Pharisaism, when 
he prays to God, fasts in obedience to Christ's 
word and the law of His Church, or visits 
Jesus Christ really present on the Catholic 
altar ? 

A true Christian, realizing the infinite malice 
of sin and God's offended justice, is thankful 
not only for Christ's institution of the sacra- 
ment of Penance for the pardon of grievous 
sin and the remission of the eternal punish- 
ment it deserves, but also for that extra-sac 
ramental remission of the temporal punish* 



Indulgences. 



409 



ment which, according to the Scriptures, may 
remain even after the eternal punishment is re- 
mitted. 

I have frequently met non- Catholics who in 
one breath found fault with the dogma of in- 
dulgences as not allowing full scope to God's 
justice, and in the next not scrupling at all to 
declare eternal punishment incompatible with 
God's mercy. Is not this straining at a gnat 
and swallowing a camel? (Matt, xxiii. 24). 

Indulgences, as a matter of fact, are great 
helps to true devotion, for they foster the spirit 
of prayer, encourage almsgiving in the name of 
Christ (Luke xi. 41, xii. 33; Matt. vi. 2), 
cause Catholics to meditate upon the Passion 
and death of Christ through whose infinite 
merits they avail, insist on the reception of 
those wonderful helps to God's love and friend* 
ship, the sacraments of penance and the Euchar- 
ist, bring vividly before men the dogma of the 
Communion of Saints, etc. 

Were not indulgences sold by the Catholic 
Church at the time of the Reformation? 

Are not pardons bought for money in your 
Church ? 

I have heard it said that in South America 
absolution can be had beforehand for the most out- 
rageous crime, if one will only pay the price re- 
quired. 



410 The Question Box. 

M It is utterly false to assert that it has ever 
been held in the Catholic Church that the 
perpetration of crime could be indulged for any 
sum of money. Neither for sins committed, 
nor sins to come, has money ever been taken as 
an equivalent ; for one no more than the other. 
On the other hand, it is quite true that the in- 
jury done to the Church, when it happens to 
be visited with a censure (which is not a com- 
mon case), has certainly sometimes been com- 
pensated by the performance of some good 
work, and in the number of such works alms- 
deeds and religious offerings are included" 
(Newman, "Present Position of Catholics," 
Lecture iii. p. 13). 

We have stated elsewhere that the ordinary 
Protestant notion of an indulgence being a 
pardon for sin is absolutely false, although to 
our shame be it said we find this calumny 
voiced by some of the teachers paid by the 
state to instruct our children in our high and 
normal schools. The sacrament of Penance is 
alone concerned with the pardon of sin, and in 
that sacrament 110 money is or can be paid. 
An indulgence has to do merely with the re- 
mission of the temporal punishment of the sin- 
ner already pardoned by the sacrament of Pen- 
ance, and can never be purchased. 

When a non -Catholic remembers that a 
heartfelt supernatural sorrow for all grievous 



Indulgences. 



sin, with a firm purpose to offend God no more, 
is an absolute prerequisite for gaining an indul- 
gence, how, believing in the Scriptures, can 
he find fault with the Catholic Church for 
promising the remission of temporal punish- 
ment as a reward for good works — among which 
is almsgiving in the name of Christ — per- 
formed by those in God's grace and friendship. 

Christ told us that the giving of a cup of 
cold water in His name would not be without 
a reward (Mark ix. 40), How then can a Chris- 
tian find fault w r ith Pope Leo X., who in the 
sixteenth century, by his apostolic power 
granted, as many Popes and Bishops for hun- 
dreds of years had done before him, not the 
pardon of sin, but the remission of temporal 
punishment due to those repentant sinners who 
would give an alms towards the building of 
one of the greatest temples ever erected in 
honor of Jesus Christ. Pope Leo, the Vicar 
of Jesus Christ, had the same right as Moses 
in the Old Law, who in God's name demanded 
from the Jews offerings of gold,- silver, brass, 
precious stones, oil> spices, for the taber* 
lacle. 

The Catholic Church has never denied that 
abuses have existed; that over-zeal led some 
preachers of indulgences to go beyond the 
teaching of the Church, or engage in some per- 
sonal trafficking. What thing holy or sacred 



412 



The Question Box, 



in the world but the avarice of men can put a 
price on it ? Women have sold their honor for 
money, fathers have sold their daughters in 
marriage, respectable Christians have trafficked 
in human flesh without blushing, men have 
betrayed their country for a price, legislatures, 
judges, jurors, voters have been frequently 
bought up. What then? Would you abolish 
the jury-system or the ballot, or condemn mat- 
rimony, because of the evils of avarice inci- 
dent thereto? 

Various Popes, from Gregory VII. in the 
eleventh century to Leo X. in the sixteenth, 
and many councils (2d Lateran, A. D. 1139 ; 1st 
Lyons, a.d. 1245 ; Vienne, a.d. 131 i, and Trent, 
a.d. 1545-1563) have condemned these abuses. 
The Council of Trent (Sess. xxv.) : (t Being 
desirous that the abuses which have crept in, 
and by occasion of which the excellent name 
of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be 
amended and corrected, ordains . . . that 
all evil gains for the obtaining thereof — whence 
a most prolific cause of abuses among the Chris- 
tian people has been derived — be wholly abol- 
ished" 

If Luther had merely protested against these 
abuses as was his right, he would only have 
been following in the footsteps of Popes Bish- 
ops, and Councils. ^But to deny the dogma 
because of these abuses, is about as sensible as 



Indulgences. 4 1 3 



to advocate free love because of the sad abuses 
of the marriage bond so prevalent to-day. That 
he was most oblivious to the nature, condi- 
tions, and effects of indulgences his ninety- 
five propositions give ample proof, even if we 
did not have his own word for it. 

The statement frequently made that Tetzel 
promised indulgences without requiring con- 
trition is absolutely without proof, and his sup- 
posed ignorance of the true Catholic doctrine 
is amply refuted by his answer to Luther " On 
Indulgences and Grace," and his defence of 
one hundred and six theses against Luther on 
the occasion of his taking his licentiate in theo- 
logy at the University of Frankfort, a.d. 1517. 
("Tetzel und Luther," Grone.) 

Does not an indulgence of one hundred days 
mean that, by certain prayers recited by the sin- 
ner, one hundred days of ms punishment in pur- 
gatory are taken off? How do you know what 
happens in the other world? 

Not at all ; for the Church does not pretend 
to know how much of Purgatory God remits by 
a partial indulgence of so many days, years, 
etc. 

Historically, the phrase arose in reference to 
the canonical penances of the early Church 
which were imposed for certain fixed periods. 
Catholics believe that by the gaining of what 
is called l< an indulgence of one hundred days*" 



414 The Question Bo£. 

the repentant sinner does as much toward the 
remission of the temporal punishment due by 
God to his sins as was done in former times by 
the performance of one hundred days of public 
penance. 

This historical formula is still retained to re- 
mind the Christians of to-day how strongly the 
early Church realized the malice of offences 
against God, that they the more readily might 
do the little required of them in atonement for 
their sins. 

How can indulgences avail for the dead whose 
dispositions cannot be known? 

The Catholic Church does not claim to di- 
rectly apply the infinite merits of Jesus Christ 
and the superabundant merits of His saints 
to the souls in Purgatory, over whom she has 
no jurisdiction. She can only offer these merits 
to God by way of suffrage, and leave the ap- 
plication entirely to His good pleasure. Thus, 
a Catholic may gain a plenary indulgence and 
offer it up for a particular soul in Purgatory ; 
but God is not pledged to apply it, and it by 
no means follows that this soul is at once 
ushered into the presence of God. This seems, 
however, to be the Ordinary Protestant notion, 
although it was expressly condemned by the 
Church in the Council of Vienne, a.d. 1311. 



Indulgences, 4 1 5 



Cannot God apply the infinite satisfactions of 
Jesus Christ without the means of indulgences ? 

God can, if He so will, remit the guilt of 
sin, and both its eternal and temporal punish- 
ment directly and immediately. But the ordi- 
nary way He established, in His Church is the 
sacrament of Penance for the guilt of sin and 
the eternal punishment, and indulgences for the 
remission of the temporal punishment. 

What do you mean by a Jubilee? 

The Jubilee (L,ev. xxv. ), or Holy Year, is 
an institution originating with Pope Boniface 
VIII. in the year 1300. It consists of a uni- 
versal plenary indulgence, or remission of all 
temporal punishments, to those who, " truly 
penitent and having confessed and communi- 
cated, shall piously visit the Basilicas of the 
Blessed Peter and Paul, St. John L,ateran, 
and St. Mary Major" (Bull of Leo XIII., 
Properante ad exitum, 1899). The extended 
Jubilee, which dates from the time of Alex- 
ander VI., grants the same privilege to the 
Catholics of the world who are unable to visit 
Rome. (For a complete history of the Jubilee 
see Herbert Thurston, S.J., "The Holy Year 
of Jubilee. " Herder, 1900.) 



4i6 



The Question Box. 



THE HOI<Y EUCHARIST. 

How can you believe that the wafer given in 
Communion is Christ the Lord? 

We believe *it on the words of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God, who promised to give us His 
flesh to eat and His blood to drink, at the lake- 
side of Galilee (John vi. 48-69), and who ful- 
filled that promise at the L,ast Supper (Matt, 
xxvi. 26-28 ; Mark xiv. 22-24 ; Luke xxii. 19, 
20; I. Cor. xi. 23-25). We have also the 
divine infallible testimony of the Catholic 
Church He established. "The Holy Synod 
(the Council of Trent) teacheth . . . that 
in the august sacrament of the Holy Euchar- 
ist, after the consecration of the bread and 
wine, our Iyord Jesus Christ, true God and man, 
is truly, really, and substantially contained un- 
der the appearances of those visible signs' ' 
(Sess. xiii. ch. i. ; Wiseman's " Lectures on the 
Real Presence"; Faber, "The Blessed Sac- 
rament"; Dalgairns, "The Holy Commu- 
nion "). 

What do you mean by transubstantiation ? 
Is it not a new teaching of the Council of 
Trent ? 

The Council of Trent says (Sess. xiii. ch. 
iv.) "that by the consecration of the bread 
and wine a change is wrought of the bread's 



The Holy Eucharist. 



417 



whole substance into the substance of Christ 
our Lord's Body, and of the wine's whole sub- 
stance into the substance of His Blood, which 
change has been by the Holy Catholic Church 
suitably and properly called Transubstantia- 
tion." 

By the substance of bread we mean its very 
essence, that internal, invisible something 
which, itself devoid of color, shape, weight, 
taste, etc., supports the qualities or accidents 
which are perceived by the senses. 

Transubstantiation, therefore, means that 
when Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, pro- 
nounced the words " Thi$ is My Body ; this is 
My Blood,' ' the Son of God by His omnipo- 
tent power transubstantiated, or changed, the 
substance of the bread and wine into His living 
flesh ; so that no bread or wine whatsoever re- 
mained, but Himself — Body, Blood, Soul, and 
Divinity, under their appearances. So in like 
manner, every day at Mass, the priest, acting 
in the Name of Christ, pronounces the same 
words, and God effects the same change. 

This is by no means a new teaching, but the 
clear, obvious interpretation of the words of 
the Saviour (Matt. xxvi. 26, etc.) When Christ 
took bread into His hands He did not say 
"This is a figure of My Body," "In this 
bread is My Body eaten by faith," " In, with, 
or under this is My Body," as he ought to 



4i8 



The Question Box. 



have said if our Lutheran or other Protestant 
brethren are right, but merely, This is My 
Body. What He held could not be bread and 
His Body at the same time ; and as there was 
no change in the appearances of bread, the 
change must have taken place in the invisible 
substance — that is, by transubstantiation. 

The doctrine of the early Fathers may be 
studied in M Faith of Catholics, " vol. ii. pp. 
191—374 ; " Manual of Theology, " Wilhelm- 
Scannell, pp. 417, 418. They clearly taught 
transubstantiation, although the word itself is 
not older than the eleventh century. A word 
often becomes the test of orthodoxy, as omdou- 
sios against the Arians, or thcotocos against the 
Nestorians. I give one testimony of the fourth 
century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem : " What seems 
bread is not bread, though it seems so to the 
taste, but Christ's Body ; what seems wine is 
not wine, even though the taste will have it so, 
but Christ's Blood" (Catech. iv. 9). 

The fact that the Council of Trent first de- 
fined the way in which Christ was present in 
the Eucharist, no more makes this a new teach- 
ing than the several definitions regarding the 
Incarnation and Trinity in the early Church, 
which defined these dogmas more clearly as 
various errors of Arianism, Nestorianism, 
Macedonianism, etc., arose concerning them. 



The Holy Eucharist. 419 

Ought not the sixth chapter of St. John's Gos- 
pel to be interpreted figuratively ? 

Does not the phrase " to eat the flesh' 9 sig- 
nify to believe in the doctrine of Christ ? 

L,et us consider the whole passage, John vi. 
48-70 : 

" I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers did 
eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is 
the bread which cometh down from heaven ; 
that if any man eat of it he may not die. I am 
the living bread which came down from heaven. 
If any man eat of this bread he shall live for 
ever ; and the bread that I will give is My flesh 
for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, 
strove among themselves, saying: How can this 
man give us His flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said 
to them : Amen, amen, I say unto you : Except 
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He 
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood, 
hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in 
the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed ; 
and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth 
My flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me 
and I in him. As the living Father hath sent 
Me, and I live by the Father : so he that eateth 
Me, the same also shall live by Me. This 
is the bread that came down from heaven. 
Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are 
dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for 



420 



The Question Box. 



ever. These things He said, teaching in the 
synagogue in Capharnaum. Many therefore of 
His disciples hearing it, said : This saying is 
hard, and who can hear it ? But Jesus know- 
ing in Himself, that His disciples murmured at 
this, said to them : Doth this scandalize you? 
If then you shall see the Son of Man ascend 
up where He was before ? It is the Spirit that 
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the 
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and 
life. But there are some of you that believe 
not. ... After this many of His disciples 
went back, and walked no more, with Him. 
Then Jesus said to the twelve : Will you also 
go away ? And Simon Peter answered Him : 
Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the 
words of eternal life. And we have believed, 
and have known, that Thou art the Christ the 
Son of God." 

This question is fully answered by Cardinal 
Wiseman in his lectures on the Real Presence 
(Lectures i.-iv.) His arguments are as follows : 

t. " I assert, therefore, that if we accurately 
consider the phraseology of this portion of the 
chapter (from verse 48 to the end), according to 
the only manner in which it could possibly be 
understood by the Jews whom Christ addressed, 
we must conclude that they would necessarily 
infer a change of topic in it, and be convinced 
that the doctrine now delivered was of a real 



The Holy Eucharist. 



421 



eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of 
Him who addressed them " (p. 69, L,ecture ii.) 

2. In every language, ancient or modern, a 
figure of speech has a definite meaning. If, 
for instance, I call a man a fox, I refer to his 
cunning ; if a lion, to his bravery, and the like. 
We cannot use figures of speech arbitrarily, 
and give them at will a new meaning, merely to 
meet the demands of controversy. u If I dis- 
cover/ ' argues Cardinal Wiseman, " that 
among the persons whom Jesus addressed, it 
(that is, the phrase to eat flesh) did bear a 
figurative signification besides its literal sense, 
then I must conclude that those persons could 
only select between that established figurative 
sense and the literal import of the words' [ (p. 
77). . . . " Now I do assert that whether 
we examine (a) the phraseology of the Bible 
(Ps. xxvi. 2, Job. xix. 22, Mich. iii. 3, Ec- 
cles. iv. 5, Gal. v. 15), (b) the ordinary lan- 
guage of the people who still inhabit the same 
country, and have inherited the same ideas 
(z. e. y the Arabs), or (c), in fine, the very 
language in which our Saviour addressed the 
Jews (Syro-Chaldaic), we shall find the ex- 
pression to eat the flesh of a person signifying 
invariably, when used metaphorically, to at- 
tempt to do him some serious injury \ pri?i- 
cipally by calumny or false accusation. Such, 
therefore^ was the only figurative meaning 



422 



The Question Box. 



which the phrase could present to the audience 
at Capharnaum " (p. 80; cf. pp. 80-91). 

3. As no one would ever imagine that Christ 
could promise eternal life on condition of our 
calumniating Him, there remains but one pos- 
sible sense of the words — the literal. "The 
ideas of drinking blood and eating human flesh 
presented something so frightful to a Jew, that 
we cannot allow our Saviour, if a sincere 
teacher, to have used them as images, for con- 
soling and cheering doctrines ; nor in fact to 
have used them at all, under any other circum- 
stances than an absolute necessity of recur- 
ring to them, as the most literal method of 
representing his doctrines" (p. 106). 

The Old L,aw expressly forbade the drinking 
of blood (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26, 
xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, xv. 23), so that the 
Jews ever regarded it as a heinous crime (Lev. 
xvii. 10 ; I. Kings xiv. 33 ; Ezech. xxxiii. 25; 
Judith xi. 10-12) ; it is frequently mentioned 
as the most dreadful curse of God upon His 
enemies (Wisdom xi. 7 ; Isa. xlix. 26 ; Apoc. 
xvi. 6 ; Jer. xix. 8, 9. Lecture iii. pp. 1 04-1 10). 

4. It is clear that the Jews understood our 
Saviour's words literally, for they question 
the possibility of their eating His flesh : " How 
can this man give us His flesh to eat 99 (verse 
53). Were they right or wrong? To deter- 
mine this, Cardinal Wiseman lays down two 



The Holy Eucharist. 423 

rules gathered from the constant practice of 
Jesus Christ in teaching His doctrine to the 
people. 

" Whenever our Lord's hearers found dif- 
ficulties, or raised objections to His words, 
from taking them in their literal sense, when 
He intended them to be taken figuratively, His 
constant practice was to explain them instantly 
in a figurative manner, even though no great 
error could result from their being misunder- 
stood " (pp. 116, 117). For example : 

' ' Jesus answered and said to him (Nico- 
demus) : Amen, Amen, I say to thee, unless 
a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God. Nicodemus saith to Him : How 
can a man be born when he is old? " Jesus at 
once explains His meaning : " Amen, Amen, I 
say to thee, unless a man be born again of 
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God" (John iii. 3-5). And 
again : " It is easier for a camel to pass through 
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter 
into the kingdom of heaven? " The disciples 
believe that He means no rich man can be saved : 
"Who then can be saved?" Jesus at once 
corrects this false impression, saying: "With 
man this is impossible, but with God all things 
are possible" (Matt. xix. 24-26. Compare 
also Matt. xvi. 6-12 ; John iv. 32-34 ; John xi. 
11-14, viii. 21-23,. 32-34, 39-44)- 



424 



The Question Box. 



"When His words were rightly under- 
stood in their literal sense, and by that correct 
interpretation gave rise to murmurs or objec- 
tions, it was His custom to stand to His words 
and repeat again the very sentiment which had 
given the offence." Thus: 

(a) Jesus " said to the man sick of the palsy : 
Be of good heart, Son; thy sins are forgiven 
thee." The Scribes, understanding the words 
aright, object, " saying within themselves: He 
blasphemeth. ' ' Our Saviour then reiterates His 
teaching: "Whether it is easier to say, Thy 
sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and 
walk ? But that you may know that the Son 
of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," 
etc. (Matt. ix. 2-7). (b) "Abraham your 
father rejoiced that he might see my day : he 
saw it, and was glad." The Jews understood 
Him to claim to have lived in Abraham's time. 
"Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast 
Thou seen Abraham ? ' ' Jesus reiterates clear- 
ly the self-same teaching : " Amen, amen, I say 
to you, before Abraham was made, I am " (John 
viii. 56-58). 

If we now consider the words in John vi., we 
see that our I^ord repeats the teaching of verse 
52 in the six following verses, declaring that to 
eat His flesh and to drink His blood is a pre- 
cept, a pledge of everlasting life, a true eating 
and drinking, a means of intimate union with 



The Holy Eucharist, 



425 



Himself, a proof of supernatural life, and an 
earnest of immortality (vv. 54-59). (Lecture 
iii. pp. 112-127.) 

5, Another strong argument for our ford's 
literal meaning is the following : 

(a) Verse 54 — " Amen, amen, I say to you, 
except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man 
and drink His blood, you shall not have life 
in you" — expresses a precept, in the strong- 
est possible way, both negative and posi- 
tive (compare with Mark xvi. 16: " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be condemned 
Understood figuratively, this precept would be 
utterly unintelligible to His Jewish hearers. 
(b) The distinction made by our Saviour be- 
tween eating His body and drinking His blood 
is without any real significance unless He is 
speaking of the Real Presence ; for to partake 
of the blood of Christ by faith adds nothing 
to the idea of partaking of His body, (c) The 
$t Amen, Amen" (v. 54) of our Saviour is evi- 
dently intended as a strong emphatic statement, 
which in the Protestant interpretation would be- 
token insincerity on His part, (d) In verse 56, 
Jesus assures the Jews that His flesh is truly 
meat and His blood is truly drink. We cannot 
imagine Him making such an answer, if they 
were wrong in understanding Him literally. 
(e) His reply, instead of removing their previ- 



426 



The Question Box. 



ous difficulties, confirmed tliem, for we read : 
" Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it, 
said: This saying is hard" — i.e., harsh or re- 
volting, and who can hear it ; that is, who can 
bear to listen to it ? These words are utterly 
without meaning if we accept the Protestant 
idea of an eating by faith. (/) Seeing that the 
disciples objected still, He appeals to the strik- 
ing miracle of His future ascension (vv. 62, 63) 
as proof positive of His words, even as He ap- 
pealed to His second coming as proof of His 
divinity before the High-Priest at His trial 
(Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). {g) Is it probable that if 
He did not wish His words to be taken literally 
He would have allowed the unbelieving dis- 
ciples to depart without explaining His mean- 
ing ? For we read : * ' After this many of His 
disciples went back, and walked no more with 
Him ,, (v. 67). 

(6) Finally His words to the twelve, "Will 
you also go away?" and St. Peter's answer: 
" Iyord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
words of eternal life " (vv. 68, 69), clearly prove 
that they really understood Him literally, and 
that they accepted without question His teach- 
ing on His word as the Son of God, although 
they did not comprehend the mystery (lecture 
iv. pp. 154-155). 

A careful study of all these arguments, to- 
gether ^;ith the fact that the figurative inter- 



The Holy Eugharist 427 



pretation is a modern one of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, ought to convince any earnest, prayerful 
student of the Sacred Scriptures that our Lord 
spoke of a real eating and drinking of His 
Body and Blood in His sermon at the syna- 
gogue at Capharnaum. 

Does not Jesus plainly indicate that He speaks 
in figure by the words: "It is the Spirit that 
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the 
words that I speak to you, they are spirit and 
they are life" (John vi. 64), 

Cardinal Wiseman (Lecture iv. pp. 175-177) 
thus answers this commonplace of controversy, 
although most learned Protestant commentators 
agree with us in rejecting the interpretation 
of our questioner (as, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, 
Schleusner, Horne, Koppe, Sartorius, Storr, 
Schmid, Roller). 

1. There is not a single instance in the Old 
or New Testament in which the word flesh is 
used to denote the literal sense of words. Yet 
this is necessary, if by the word spirit their 
figurative or spiritual signification is here de- 
noted. 

2. " If by the flesh we are to understand the 
material flesh of Christ, by the spirit we must 
understand His spirit. If so, in what way does 
the phrase explain that the foregoing words 
are to be taken figuratively ? n 



428 



The Question Box. 



3. " The terms flesh and spirit, when opposed 
to each other in the New Testament, have a 
definite meaning which never varies." . . . 
Then, citing as examples Rom. viii. 1-14, the 
cardinal continues : " From this passage, were 
others wanting, it would be clear that the flesh 
signifies the corrupted dispositions and weak 
thoughts of human nature; and the spirit 
means the sentiment of man as elevated and 
ennobled by grace. . . . Christ's words 
then are, spirit and life ; ... in other 
words, such as the mere man cannot receive, 
but which require a strong power of grace to 
make them acceptable. (Compare Gal. v. 13- 
26 ; I. Pet. iv. 6 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; John iii. 6 ; 
Rom. viL 5, 6, 25 ; I. Cor. v. 5 ; II. Cor. vii. 
1 ; Gal. iii. 3, iv. 29 ; I. Pet. iii. 18, etc.) 

Ought not the words of Christ at the Last Sup- 
per (Matt. xxvi. 28) be understood in a figura- 
tive sense? 

But carefully consider them : 

Matt. xxvi. 26-28: "And whilst they were 
at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and 
broke, and gave to His disciples, and said : 
Take ye and eat, This is My Body. And tak- 
ing the chalice He gave thanks, and gave to 
them, saying : Drixik ye all of this, For this is 
My Blood of the New Testament, which shall 
be shed for many unto the remission of sins." 



The Holy Eticharist. 



Mark xiv. 22-24: "And whilst they were 
eating, Jesus took bread ; and blessing, broke, 
and gave to them and said: Take ye, This is 
My Body. And having taken the chalice, giv- 
ing thanks, He gavs it to them. And they 
all drank of it. And He said to them °. This 
is My Blood of the New Testament, which 
shall be shed for many." 

Luke xxii. 19-20: " And taking bread, He 
gave thanks and brake, and gave to them, say- 
ing : This is My Body, which is given for you. 
Do this for a commemoration of Me. In like 
manner the chalice also after He had supped, 
saying : This is the Chalice, the New Testament 
in My Blood, which shall be shed for you." 

I. Cor. xi. 23-25 : " The Lord Jesus . . 
took bread, and giving thanks, broke and 
said : Take ye and eat : This is My Body, 
which shall be delivered for you ; this do for 
the commemoration of Me. In like manner 
also the Chalice, after He had supped, saying 1 
This Chalice is the New Testament in My Blood / 
this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the 
commemoration of Me." (Cf. Lecture v., On 
the Real Presence, p. 189 et seq.) 

St. Cyril answered this objection in the 
fourth century: " Since Christ Himself affirms 
thus of the bread, 7 his is My Body, who is so 
daring as to doubt it ? And since He affirms, 
This is My Blood, who will deny that it is His 



43° 



The Question Box. 



Blood? At Cana of Galilee He, by an act of 
His will, turned water into wine, which re- 
sembles blood; and is He not then to be 
credited when He changes wine into Blcod ? 
Therefore, full of certainty, let us receive the 
Body and Blood of Christ ; for, under the form 
of bread, is given to thee His Body, and under 
the form of wine His Blood* 9 (Catech, Mys- 
tagog., 4, i, 2), 

The words of St. Luke are most clear (xxii. 
19, 20) ; This is My Body now given for 
you — that is, the very Body that was to be 
offered on the cross ; this is My Blood now 
shed for you — that is, the very blood that was 
to flow from His Sacred Heart. When, there- 
fore, a Protestant interprets these simple words 
of our Saviour, " This is My Body — this is My 
Blood/ 9 to mean this is a figure or symbol of 
My Body and Blood, He must show some valid 
reason for denying the Lord's statement of the 
Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence. 

That was no time to speak in misleading 
figures of speech, for our Lord was making His 
Last Testament, and instituting a sacrament and 
a sacrifice which would last until His second 
coming (Luke xxii. 19; I. Cor. xi. 26) ■ Would 
He, the Infinite Wisdom, and the Lover of souls, 
use words which were calculated to deceive the 
greater number of His people for all time, and 
lead them into the idolatry He came expressly 



The Holy Eucharist. 43 1 



to abolish ? Shall Christians hesitate between 
the " black or white spirit" that told the 
figurative meaning to Ulrich Zwingli in a 
dream, and the constant voice of Eastern and 
Western Christendom from the beginning ? 

The literal interpretation of the w r ords of 
Christ is also plainly taught a second time hy 
St. Paul: "The Chalice of Benediction which 
we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood 
of Christ ? And the bread which we break, 
is it not the partaking of the Body of th(? 
Lord? " (I. Cor. x. 16). 

The word "partaking" used several times 
In the following verses (18, 20, 21) refers to a 
real sharing in the sacrifices of the pagans ; 
why then, in verse 16, should it not refer to 
a real partaking of the Body of the Lord ? 

I. Cor. xi. 27-29 is even more explicit ; 
M Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or 
drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall 
be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the 
Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so 
let Him eat of that bread, and drink of the 
chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to 
himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord." 

" Plain and simple reason,' 9 says Cardinal 
Wiseman, "seems to tell us that the presence 
of Christ's Body is necessary for an offence 
committed against it. A man cannot be 1 guilty 



43 2 The Question Box. 



majesty/ unless the majesty exists in the 
>bject against which his crime is committecL 
In like manner, an offender against the Blessed 
Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of 
Christ's Body and Blood if these be not in the 
sacrament " (Lectures on the Eucharist, pp. 
318, 319). 

Again, if Christ is not really present, h.ort 
can the Apostle denounce the unprepared com- 
municant as guilty of grievous sin for "not 
discerning the Body of the Lord?" 

Does not the word " to be " frequently mean to 
represent ? Why not in the words of Christ at the 
Last Supper ? " The seven good kine are seven 
years " (Gen. xli. 26), "The ten horns *> c » 
are the ten kings " (Dan. vii. 24), " The field is 
the world " (Matt. xiii. 38), "That rock was 
Christ " (I. Cor. x. 4), " The seven stars are the 
angels of the seven churches " (Rev. i. 20),, 
" These (they) are the two covenants" (GaL iVo 
24.) 

1. The passages above cited are by no means 
parallel to the words of the institution of the 
Eucharist: This is My Body ; This is My Blood. 

2. If there are some few passages of Holy 
Writ where to be means to represent, there are 
thousands of others where the verb to be is to 
be taken literally. 

3. According to this argument; the words of 



The Holy Eucharist, .433 



St. John (i. i) " The Word was God" should 
mean " the word represented God " — a reductio 
ad absurdum evident to any Protestant Bible 
student who believes in the Divinity of Christ. 

4. These texts are not parallel passages, for 
they all refer to the explanation of a symbol, and 
not to the institution of one. It is not the 
recurrence of the same word but of the same 
thing that constitutes a parallelism. 

The context clearly shows that in the cases 
cited there is question of a vision, a parable, 
an allegory, or a metaphor : Gen. xli. 25 : 
"the dream of Pharao is one," etc. Dan. vii. 
15: "the visions of my head troubled me." 
Matt. xiii. 36 : " Declare unto us the parable of 
the tares." I. Cor. x. 4 : "They drank of the 
spiritual rock ." Apoc. i. 20 : " The mystery " 
z. e. y allegory or symbol, "of the seven stars." 
Gal. iv. 24: " Which things are an allegory" 

5. All these texts differ in point of con- 
struction from " This is My Body." In each a 
definite subject is said to be something else, 
and as we know that two material objects can- 
not be identical, we are obliged to look for a 
figurative meaning (Wiseman's Lectures on the 
Real Presence, L,ecture v. pp. 206-222). 

Does not the verb " to be " mean to represent, 
in this text, "It is the Lord's passover"? 
(Exod. xii. 11). 



434 



The Question Box. 



Not at all, although "the black or white 
spirit' ' told Ulrich Zwingli in a dream that 
this text alone was conclusive against a literal 
interpretation of " This is My Body." The 
original reads : " the passover to the Lord M ; 
that is, a sacred thing to the Lord. This is 
proven conclusively by verse 27 of the same 
chapter : 1 1 this is to the Lord the sacrifice of the 
passover." Here the paschal feast is spoken of 
not as any emblem of the Lord's passover, but 
as its sacrifice ; and the thing so spoken of is 
said to be sacred to the Lord. The verb which 
expresses this idea must necessarily be taken 
in its own strict sense. In the other passage, 
therefore, in which the same thing is spoken of, 
and the same construction employed, we must 
conclude that the word has the same mean- 
ing ; this is the paschal feast sacred to the 
Lord (Wiseman, Lecture v. p. 235). It is 
interesting to note that the original does not 
contain the words to be at all. 

Does not Christ say of Himself figuratively : 
" I am the door " (John x. 9), " 1 am the true 
vine" (John xv 1) ? Might He not therefore 
call the Eucharist His body only in figure? 

The texts are by no means parallel, for : 
1. To be liere does not mean to repr°s^n*, for 
our Lord did not intend to make 3 
symbol or figure of material objects r :svords of 



The Holy Eucharist. 



435 



dently meant by the two comparisons to show 
that He resembled a door inasmuch as all must 
have access to the Father through Him, — " By 
Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved/ * — 
or that He was like a vine to which they by 
grace were united as branches (John xv. 1-6). 
The context in both cases makes our Lord's 
figurative meaning perfectly evident. 2. The 
fact again of identity being predicated of two 
different objects (Christ and a door, Christ and 
a vine) forbids any one thinking for a moment 
of a literal interpretation (L,ecture v. pp. 222- 
225). 

Is not the doctrine of the Real Presence impos- 
sible ? How can the Eternal God be contained in 
the wafer Catholics receive? 

The Blessed Eucharist is a dogma full of 
mystery, but it involves no contradiction or 
absurdity, and is no more impossible than any 
other of the mysteries of Christianity. 

If God can create the universe out of nothing, 
why cannot He change the substance of bread 
and wine into the substance of the Body and 
Blood of Jesus Christ ? 

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, taught this 
doctrine, and "with God all things are possi- 




| follower of Christ does not ask 
lithe unbelieving Jew (John vi. 53), 



436 



The Question Box. 



but says with the Apostle Peter, who did not 
comprehend the mystery of the Real Presence, 
but accepted it on the divine word of the 
Saviour : " Thou hast the words of eternal life. 
And w r e have believed and known that Thou 
art the Christ, the Son of God" (John vi. 69, 
70). 

The Apostles who had witnessed the tran- 
substantiation of water into wine at the mar- 
riage feast of Cana in Galilee (John ii. 1-11), 
the feeding of the five thousand with five barley 
loaves and two fishes (John vi. 1-14), and the 
many other miracles wrought by the Son of 
God, never questioned His power to change 
bread and wine into His Body and Blood. So 
Catholics believe this dogma on the words of 
the Son of God, and ask not to fathom a mys- 
tery of God. 

Transubstantiation has an analogy in nature, 
imperfect though it may be. For is not the 
human body, which changes entirely every few 
years, made up of the food we have assimilated ? 
Does not at least a part of this food become 
body and blood ? Why believe in this gradual, 
mysterious change that God works in us con- 
tinually, and deny Him the power of instantly 
changing food into His Body and Blood (J. S. 
Vaughan, " Thoughts for all Times," pp. 140- 
142 ; Wiseman, L,ectures on the Real Pres- 
ence, L,ecture vi.) 



The Holy Eucharist. 437 



Does not the dogma of the Real Presence di- 
rectly contradict the evidence of my senses? 
They declare that what I see and taste is merely 
bread and wine. 

Not in the slightest degree. ''All that we 
can see, touch, or taste are the accidents (ap- 
pearances), but they have not been changed, or 
in any way affected. There is no miracle, 
therefore, in the fact that when we look at a 
consecrated host we do not see the substance of 
Christ's Body. The miracle would be if we 
did. All that we see after the consecration is 
just precisely what we saw before the consecra- 
tion, viz., the accidents of bread. And our 
senses are not deceived, for the things we see are 
really there, viz., the accidents of bread — the 
invisible substance alone .having departed " (J. 
S. Vaughan, 11 Thoughts for all Times, ' 1 p. 139). 
> Our objector must remember that the senses 
judge only of appearances, and therefore often 
cause a man to make false inferences of fact. 
The rational mind corrects these when reason, 
science, or revelation declares them false. Con- 
sider, for example, the sense of sight. It will 
not prove the Copernican theory, but rather 
tell us that the sun rises in the east and sets 
in the west ; it will not perceive the myriads 
of animalculse in a glass of water unless aided 
by the microscope ; it will not distinguish the 
difference between two pieces of iron — the one 



438 



The Question Box. 



magnetized and the other not ; it could not per- 
ceive the divinity of our Lord, but declared, in 
the mouth of the unbelieving Jew, " Is not this 
the Carpenter's Son? ?> (Matt. xiii. 55). 

If, then, Jesus Christ declares that the sub- 
stance underlying the appearance of bread in 
the consecrated host is His Body and Blood, 
we accept His testimony without question, for 
we know He is the infallible God. 

How can Christ be at the right hand of the 
Father, and on earth at the same time ? 

How can the Body of Christ be in so many 
places at the same time? , 

Does not the Saviour expressly deny His Real 
Presence among the people to-day? "For ye 
have the poor with you always, . . . but 
Me ye have not al ways" (Mark xiv. 7). 

"The whole question, " writes Father Dal- 
gairns, " resolves itself into this: Can a body 
be unextended ? Who will say that God cai> 
not take from a body the property of ex- 
tension ? What contradiction is there in it ? 
Is it not easy for us to conceive substance with- 
out extension ? If you take to pieces the idea 
of substance, we shall find that it is quite in- 
dependent of quantity, on which extension de- 
pends ; /or the smallest grain of gold is as 
really and substantially gold as all the precious 
metal contained in the whole universe. 



The Holy Eucharist. 



439 



" Again, quantity is a sensible tiling which 
is seen by the eye and felt by the touch ; but 
as for substance, it is revealed to us by the 
mind alone. Let God but only reduce a body 
to the state of pure substance, and it ceases at 
once to be extended without ceasing to be 
a body. It is by extension that a body becomes 
subject to the laws of space ; take extension 
away, and it partakes at once of some of the 
prerogatives of spirit. 

"This then is what God has done to the 
Body of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It 
has ceased to be extended, and all at once it is 
freed from the fetters w T hich bound it to place. 
It is not so much that it is in many places at 
once as that it is no longer under the ordinary 
laws of space at all. It pervades the Host like 
a spirit. It uses indeed the locality formerly 
occupied by the bread, in order to fix itself 
into a definite place ; but it only comes into the 
domain of space indirectly, through the species 
(the appearances of bread and w T ine), as the soul 
only enters into its present relations with space 
through the body. Who will say that this in- 
volves contradiction or that it is beyond the 
power of omnipotence ? 99 (Dalgairns, "The 
Holy Communion," pp. 33, 34). 

We find this multiplication of the sacramen : 
tal presence of Christ foreshadowed in the 
miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and 



440 



The Question Box. 



fishes in the desert (John vi. 13). Who can ex- 
plain how five barley loaves would suffice to 
satisfy the hunger of five thousand, or how 
each loaf could have been at one and the same 
time in the hands of several persons? {Cf. 
J. S. Vaughan, "Thoughts for all Times," pp. 
142-1/16). ^ 

It is indeed a wonderful mystery that Jesus 
Christ should be really present on thousands of 
altars the world over ; but the Christian does 
not deny a fact merely because it is mysteri- 
ous. Mystery is often the law for the finite 
intelligence in things human ; much more, 
therefore, in divine things. We know little in- 
deed of substance, or of glorified- bodies, al- 
though the Apostle tells us that our own will 
possess new and wonderful qualities (I. Cor. xv. 
42-44). Who can explain how the glorified 
Body of the Risen Christ passed through the 
stone of the Sepulchre (Mark xv. 46) , or through 
the closed door of the upper room in Jeru- 
salem? (John xx. 26). Who can explain how 
the human soul is really and wholly present in 
every part of the human body ? — a fact of philos- 
ophy admitted even by the pagan Aristotle. 

The text cited above clearly refers to His 
natural visible presence among the disciples 
during His earthly ministry. It in no way 
contradicts the fact of His sacramental pres- 
ence in the Eucharist. He also says : "I am 



The Holy Eucharist. 



441 



with you all days, even to the consummation 
of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). 

Do not many Episcopalians in this country and 
in England believe in transubstantiation as much 
as you Catholics do? 

Yes ; but they believe it on the Protestant prin- 
ciple of private judgment, and being deprived 
of valid orders, their ministers have no power 
whatsoever to change the bread and wine into 
Christ the Lord's body. Their Church is hope- 
lessly divided on this point, haviug no divine 
authority to teach the Gospel, and indeed in its 
official capacity declares " transubstantiation, 
or the change of the substance of bread and 
wine in the supper of the Lord, cannot be 
proved from Holy Writ; but is iepugnant to 
the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the 
nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion 
to many superstitions " (Art. XXVIII.) 

Dr. Ryle, the Protestant Bishop of Liver- 
pool, wrote in his Visitation Charge, Novem- 
ber, 1893, regarding "the real divisions' ' on 
this point of doctrine: "One section of our 
clergy, and probably the majority, maintains 
that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice ; another, 
and probably the minority, maintains with 
equal firmness that it is not, and should only 
be called a sacrament. One maintains that the 
communion table is an altar, and should al- 



442 



The Question Box. 



ways be treated as such. Another maintains 
that it is only the Holy Table. 

"One maintains that the minister at the 
Lord's Supper is a sacrificing priest. An- 
other maintains that he is only an officiating 
presbyter, though called a priest, and that there 
is no authority for sacerdotalism in the New 
Testament or the prayer-book. 

" One maintains that there is a real objective 
presence of Christ's body and blood under the 
form of the consecrated bread and wine. The 
other maintains that there is no real presence 
whatsoever except in the heart of believing 
communicants. " 

Can a Church powerless to teach infallibly 
on so vital a dogma claim to witness divinely to 
the Gospel of Christ? Can a Church which 
cannot answer with certainty when questioned 
by eager, earnest souls, pretend to be God's 
Church? High-Churchmen believe firmly in 
the Real Presence on the Catholic altar. If 
they find all the Eastern Christians, all Roman 
Catholics, and many of their own Church de- 
clare unanimously that they are kneeling in 
adoration to a mere piece of bread, should they 
not investigate most thoroughly into the rea- 
sons w T hy? {American Cath. Quarterly ', A.d. 

1899, p. 137 ) 
Why do you deny the cup to the laity? 



The Holy Eucharist. 



443 



Why do you deprive the people of half the 
Lord's Supper ? 

Why don't Catholics give the Communion as it 
was given in Apostolic times? 

How can your Church change a divinely ap- 
pointed Sacrament ? 

Did not Jesus command us, saying : " Drink 
ye all of it"? (Matt. xxvi. 27). 

The Catholic Church teaches that the re- 
ception of Communion under the form of wine 
is not absolutely necessary, for she has ever 
believed "that as much is contained under 
either species as under both ; for Christ, whole 
and entire, exists under the species of bread, 
and under each (divided) particle of that 
species ; and whole under the species of wine, 
and under its (separated) parts" (Trent, 
Sess. xiii. c. 3). The Eucharist is the living 
Christ ; and as a living body is not without its 
blood, or living blood without a body, so Christ 
is received whole and entire under either form 
of bread and wine. 

It is natural enough that Protestants who 
deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the 
Eucharist, and believe that the sacrament con- 
sists merely in the eating bread and drinking 
wine in memory of the Saviour — a partaking 
by faith— should insist on receiving both bread 
and wine. But Catholics having the Christ — 
Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity — beneath the 



444 



The Question Box. 



appearances, regard it as a matter of disci- 
pline which of them is to be received in Holy 
Communion. 

The Scriptures show us the Saviour promis- 
ing the same reward to Communion under one 
kind as under both. To quote the Council of 
Trent : * ' He who said : Except you eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, 
you shall not have life in you (John vi. 54), 
has likewise said: If any man eat of it he may 
not die (vi. 50). And He who has said : He 
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood 
hath everlasting life (vi. 55), has also said: 
The bread that I will give is My flesh, for the life 
of the world (vi. 52). And lastly, He who has 
said : He that eateth My flesh and drinketh 
My blood, abideth in Me and I in him (vi. 59), 
has nevertheless said : He who eateth this 
bread shall live for ever (vi. 59)" (Sess. xxi. 
ch. i.) 

Frequently, too, the receiving of Communion 
vnder the form of bread is mentioned in the 
Scriptures: ' 1 They were persevering in the 
doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communi- 
cation of the breaking of bread, and in praj T ers M 
(Acts ii. 42) ; " Whosoever shall eat this bread 
vr drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, 
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
L,ord" (I. Cor. xi. 27; Acts xx. 7; Luke 
xxiv. 30, 31). 



The Holy Eucharist, 



445 



In this passage in the King James' Protest- 
ant version the word and is substituted for or 
without any warrant save the need of contro- 
versy, although the late revised version cor- 
rects the text in accordance with the original 
Greek and the Catholic English version. • 

The words " drink ye all of it" (Matt, 
xxvi. 27) were addressed, not to the faithful in 
general but to the Apostles who alone were pres- 
ent. * ' And they (the Apostles) all drank of it * 1 
(Mark xiv. 23). The Eucharist is not only 
a sacrament but a sacrifice ("do this for a 
commemoration of ^e," Luke xxii. 19), and 
the sacrifice requires that the Victim, Jesus 
Christ, be at least mystically immolated, and 
His precious Blood shed in a mystical way. 
This is the reason why the Body and Blood 
of the Saviour, although inseparably united, 
are produced at Mass by a two-fold consecra- 
tion— "This is My Body," "This is My 
Blood ' ' — and under both forms. It was also re- 
quired to complete the sacrifice that the Apos- 
tles and their successors, the priests of the 
New Law, should partake of the sacrifice 
under both forms. When, however, priests do 
not celebrate Mass, as when receiving the 
Viaticum in illness, they receive just as the 
laity, under the form of bread alone. 

Moreover, any one versed in Church history 
knows that the practice of the Church has 



446 



The Question Box. 



varied at different periods, according to cir- 
cumstances. The Fathers of the Church tell 
us that the anchorites of the desert, travellers 
going on long journeys, people in their homes 
before their morning meal, and others in 
danger of death, as well as the martyrs in the 
prisons, received under the form of bread alone, 
whilst infants received under the form of wine 
alone. 

In the fifth century Pope Gelasius (a d. 
492) commanded the laity to receive uud^r 
both forms, to deter from Communion the 
Manicheans, who heretically considered wine 
evil in itself. The law commanding the laity 
to receive under the form of bread dates from 
the Council of Constance (a.d. 1414), and 
was directed against the heretical Hussites, 
who declared the use of the cup absolutely 
necessary. Custom, however, had long before 
this done away with Communion under the 
form of wine, for the reasons set forth in the 
catechism of the Council of Trent (Part ii. 
ch. 14, n. 64), viz., the scarcity of pure wine 
in certain places, the danger of spilling the 
consecrated species, the repugnance of some, 
etc. (Milner, 4 4 The End of Religious Con- 
troversy, " Letter xxxix.; 1 i Faith of Catho- 
lics,' 9 vol. ii.) 



What would happen to the Sacrament if your 



The Holy Eucharist. 447 

church was destroyed by fire? Is it not bias* 
phemy to assert that Christ's sacred Body is 
digested by one of His followers ? 

Catholics believe that Christ's Body is now 
a glorified Body, and therefore incapable of 
suffering or change. Christ remains under the 
appearances of bread and wine no longer than 
these material appearances remain; once they 
cease because of digestion, or from any other 
cause, the presence of Christ ceases also. 

Why do Catholics place one knee on the floor 
before entering the pew ? 

Catholics genuflect on entering :^lA leaving 
the Church as a mark of love and adoration to 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is really 
present upon the Catholic altar. 

Why do Catholics fast before receiving Com- 
munion ? 

Out of honor and respect to Jesus Christ, 
whom they are going to receive. This was 
the practice of the primitive Christians, as we 
learn from Tertullian in the second century 
(Ad Uxorem, ii. 5). 

What is meant by Benediction of the Blessed 
Sacrament ? 

Benediction is the blessing of the people by 
Jesus Christ, really present in the Blessed Sac- 
rament. 



448 



The Question Box. 



After the candles are lighted upon the altar, 
the priest takes the Host consecrated at Mass 
out of the tabernacle, and places It in a stand 
of gold or silver called the monstrance or os- 
tensorium, which remains upon the altar, or 
upon an elevated throne where it may be seen 
by all the people, who kneel and adore the 
Saviour. 

The priest then puts incense into the thuri- 
ble, and waves it three times in the direction 
of the Blessed Sacrament, as a symbol of the 
peopled prayer, " Let My prayer be directed 
as incense in Thy sight'' (Ps. cxl. 2;. The 
choir or the people sing special hymns in honor 
of Jesus Christ, usually " O Salutaris Hostia " 
(O Saving Host) and the "Tantutn Ergo" 
(Down in adoration falling). 

Then placing over his shoulders a long 
silk scarf, called the humeral veil, the priest 
takes up the monstrance, and with it makes the 
sign of the cross over the people; and thus the 
Eucharistic Christ blesses the people. 

There is no more beaatiful or impressive 
ceremony in the Catholic Church, as many non- 
Catholics who have witnessed it have testified. 
After the Benediction the consecrated Host is 
again placed in the tabernacle, whilst the choir 
sings the cxvi. Psalm : " O praise the Lord, all 
ye nations,' ' or the hymn 4< Holy God, we 
praise Thy Name." 



The Mass. 



449 



THE MASS. 
What do you mean by the Mass? 

"The Mass, according to Catholic doctrine, 
is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the 
Cross, for as often as we celebrate it, we show 
the death of the Lord until He come (I. Cor. 
xi. 26). At the same time, it is not a bare 
commemoration of that other sacrifice, since it 
is also itself a true sacrifice in the strict sense 
of the term. It is a true sacrifice because it 
has all the essentials of a true sacrifice : its 
Priest, Jesus Christ, using the ministry of an 
earthly representative ; its Victim, Jesus Christ, 
truly present under the appearances of bread 
and wine ; its sacrificial offering, the mystic 
rite of consecration. And it commemorates 
the sacrifice of the Cross, because whilst its 
Priest is the Priest of Calvary, its Victim the 
Victim of Calvary, and its mode of offering a 
mystic representation of the blood-shedding of 
Calvary, the end also for which it is offered is 
to carry on the work of Calvary, by pleading 
for the application of the merits consummated 
on the Cross to the souls of men" (Vindica- 
tion of the Bull on Anglican Orders, by the 
Bishops of England, p. 12). 

What is the difference between a High Mass 
and a Low Mass? 

They are essentially the same, and differ 



45 o The Question Box. 

only in the external ceremonies, which are 
more numerous and solemn in the former. A 
Solemn High Mass implies the presence of a 
deacon and subdeacon to assist the priest. 

Did not Christ do away with sacrifices alto- 
gether in founding a new religion ? What proof, 
indeed, is there in the Scriptures that He estab- 
lished a new one, which you call the Mass ? 

Among all nations and peoples from the be- 
ginning (Gen. iv.), Mohammedans and Protest- 
ants alone excepted, sacrifice, or the offering to 
God of the visible things of His creation in 
token of His supreme dominion and of our 
utter dependence upon Him, has been the chief 
external act of religion. 

In the Old L,aw, God answered this natural 
instinct of the human heart by giving to the 
Jewish people clear and explicit details of the 
various sacrifices, known as holocausts, or burnt- 
offerings; eucharistic, or thank-offerings (Exod. 
xxix.); impetratory, or peace-offerings (L,ev. 
xxiv. 5-9), and propitiatory, or sin-offerings 
(Num. xxviii. 15). 

We know from the Epistle to the Hebrews 
that these sacrifices were indeed only temporary, 
and types of the great sacrifice of Christianity. 
The priesthood of the Old Law foreshadowed 
the High-Priest Christ Jesus (Heb. viii.) ; the 
Jewish sacrifices, unable of themselves to take 



The Mass. 



451 



away sin (Heb. x. 4), pointed to the Sacrifice 
of Calvary, , where "Christ being come, an 
High-Priest of the good things to come, 
. * . by His own blood . . . obtained 
eternal redemption" (Heb. ix. 11, 12). 

This sacrifice, whereby man was redeemed, 
could not be repeated (Heb. x. 14), but the 
Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is this 
identical sacrifice, applying daily on the altars 
of the world the infinite merits of Jesus Christ 
to individual souls. 

The prophet Malachi foretold a new sacrifice 
in place of the Jewish sacrifices, which was to 
be offered up among all the nations of the 
earth : "I have no pleasure in you (the 
priests), saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not 
receive a gift of your hand. For from the ris- 
ing of the sun even to the going down, My 
name is great among the Gentiles ; and in every 
place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to 
my name a clean oblation ; for My Name is 
great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of 
hosts " (Mai. i. 10, 11). 

Again, St. Paul (Heb. vii. 17) calls Jesus 
Christ a priest for ever according to the order 
of Melchisedech (Gen. xiv. 18), as distinguished 
from the order of Aaron. The unbloody sac- 
rifice of Melchisedech — bread and wine — typi- 
fies therefore, as a type the reality, the sacrifice 
that Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper, 



452 The Question Box. 

■ ■ ■ » i - •« j 

The sacrifice of tlie Mass was instituted at 
the Last Supper, where, as we read in Luke 
xxii. 20, Mark xiv. 24, Matt. xxvi. 28, our 
Lord declares that His blood contained at that 
moment in the chalice " is shed for the remis- 
sion of sins," as the blood of victims in the 
Old Law was offered to the Lord for a sin-offer- 
ing (Num. xxviii. 15). This shedding of the 
blood of Christ, physically upon the Cross, is in 
the sacrifice of the Mass mystical, and consists 
in the representation of Christ's death by the 
separate consecration of the Body and the 
Blood of Christ, although both are really in- 
separably united. 

St. Paul, warning the Corinthians (I. Cor. 
x. 14-21) against taking part in the idolatrous 
worship around them, makes a comparison be- 
tween the Corinthian pagan sacrificial altar and 
the " table " (altar) of the Christians. Again, 
he declares eating the flesh of a victim 
makes the pagan a sharer in the sacrificial of- 
ferings, and that therefore a Christian who, at 
the table (altar) of the Lord, receives Jesus 
Christ ("the Body of the Lord" and "the 
Blood of Christ ,, ) ) ought not to eat victims 
sacrificed to idols. If there were no Eucharistic 
sacrifice of which the Christians partook, the 
argument of the Apostle would be utterly with- 
out meaning. 

One other reference to the Mass is made by 



The Mass. 



453 



St. Luke, when he tells us that the Christians 
of Antioch i ■ were ministering to the Lord" 
(Acts xiii. 2). The word ministering here used 
always refers to sacrifice (Heb. ix. 21, x. 11), 
and has ever been the Greek equivalent (litur- 
gy) for the Latin Missa (Mass). (For the tes- 
timonies of the Fathers,' see " Faith of Catho- 
lics, " vol. ii. p. 385-505; Win. Humphrey, 
S.J., "The One Mediator"; Daniel Rock, 
D.D., " Hierurgia," vol. i. ; Wilhelm-Scan- 
nell, "Manual of Catholic Theology," vol. ii. 
p. 431-463 ; O'Brien, " History of the Mass.") 

Is not the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross per- 
fect and all-sufficient? St. Paul says: " By 
one oblation He hath perfected for ever them 
that are sanctified " (Heb. x. 14), and " we are 
sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus 
Christ once" (Heb. x. 10). 

Catholics hold that the infinite merits and. 
efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross cannot be 
increased by any new sacrifice. The Mass is 
not a new sacrifice, but the continuation of the 
bloody sacrifice of the Cross applied in an un- 
bloody manner to the souls of individual Chris- 
tians, announcing daily 4 'the death of the Lord 
until He come" (I. Cor. xi. 26), in fulfilment 
of the command of Christ : 11 Do this for a com- 
memoration of me" (Luke xxii. 19). Was it 
fair to translate the Greek word 1 1 ephapax 9 1 in 



454 



The Question Box. 



the Protestant authorized version (Heb. x. 10) 
1 1 once for all, ' 1 whereas in all other passages 
where the word occurs it is translated merely 
by the word " once" ? (Rom. vi. io; I. Cor. 
xv. 6; Heb. ix. 12, etc.) 

Catholics denounce the irrational and in- 
credible doctrine of the Atonement held by the 
Reformers, that no matter how wicked a man 
might be, he might still rest content with the 
thought that Christ has made full atonement for 
all his sins, which was imputed to the sinner 
without any co-operation on his part. We be- 
lieve the merits of Christ were indeed infinite, 
but they must in some way be applied to the 
sinner. They afford the means of salvation ; 
but a sinner must freely, through the sacra- 
ments and the Mass which apply that atone- 
ment, make them through God's grace his own. 

How can you be sure that Masses take souls out 
of Purgatory? Do you know the secrets of God ? 

We do not pretend to know how far God ap- 
plies the infinite merits of the sacrifice of the 
Mass to either the living or the dead. We 
know, however, its propitiatory character by 
the infallible witness of the Church (Trent., 
Sess. xxii. can. 3), which voices the teaching 
of all the ancient liturgies, and of the Fathers. 
"By Apostolic laws," says St. Chrysostom 
(a.d* 398),," it is determined that in the vener- 



The Mass. 455 

able mysteries commemoration of the dead be 
made" (In Phil. Horn., 3, n. 4). 

Why must Catholics go to church every Sun- 
day under penalty of sin ? Our churches are 
not so exacting. 

Because it is one of the laws of their Church, 
who as the divine, infallible teacher of the reve- 
lation of Jesus Christ alone dares command 
men with authority, to show at least this much 
homage to Jesus Christ present on her altars at 
the sacrifice of Calvary. I remember being 
asked once by a Congregational minister in 
Connecticut the secret of our large church at- 
tendance compared to the average srnall attend- 
ance in the Protestant churches throughout the 
country. ' 'Jesus Christ really present," was 
my answer, M with the conviction that the 
Church, His living, divine voice, has power to 
command even as He, under penalty of damna- 
tion." When men disclaim all notion of infal- 
libility for their church, and teach merely 
views, opinions, and speculations about the 
gospel of Christ, religious faith becomes daily 
more and more vague and shadowy, and its ob- 
ligations soon vanish entirely. 

What prayers does the priest say at Mass? 

The chief prayers of the Mass are : the Forty- 
second Psalm, "Judge me, O Lord "; the Con^ 



The Question Box. 



Steor, or confession of sins ; the Introit, consist- 
ing generally of a verse of a psalin from the old 
Itala version of the Scriptures ; the Kyrie Elei- 
son, or Lord have mercy on us (Matt. xx. 30; 
Luke xvii. 13) ; the Gloria in Excelsis, or the 
angels' song of joy at the birth of Christ (Luke 
ii. 13, 14) ; the Dominus Vobiscum, the Lord be 
with you (Ruth ii. 4 ; Luke i. 28 ; II. Tim. iv. 
22) ; the Collects or Prayers, some of which are 
over thirteen hundred years old ; the Epistle 
and Gospel, read from the earliest times, as the 
Jews used to read Moses and the prophets in 
the synagogue (Acts xiii. 15); the Credo, or 
Nicene Creed ; the Offertory, so-called for the 
offerings formerly made by the people of bread 
and wine for the sacrifice ; the Preface, or the 
introduction to the most solemn part of the 
Mass, called the Canon; the Sanctus (Isaias vi. 
3 ; Apoc. iv. 8 ; Matt. xxi. 9); the memento, or 
special prayer for the living; the consecration, 
This is My Body ; this is My Blood (Matt, 
xxvi. 26); the memento for the dead ; the Pater 
Noster, or Our Father (Matt. vi. 9); the Agnus 
Dei (John i. 29); the Communion, the Blessing, 
the Last Gospel— generally John i. 1-14. 

The prayers of the liturgy breathe the simple 
sweetness of the Word of God and of the early 
Fathers, who prayed with hearts full of love for 
Jesus Christ. No non- Catholic can read them 
once and not perceive their wondrous beauty and 



The Mass. 



457 



devotion. Indeed, a study of these prayers has 
made more than one earnest soul realize how 
false the spirit of the Reformation that could 
stigmatize them as "blasphemous fables and 
dangerous deceits" (Rev. John O'Brien, M A 
History of the Mass "). Most of the beautiful 
prayers in the Episcopal prayer-book, so much 
admired and loved, are merely translations of 
the old Catholic prayers. 

Why do you charge for Masses ? Is not this 
the sin of Simon Magus ? (Acts viii. 18-24). 

Why do you exact a fixed sum of money to get 
people out of Purgatory ? Should not salvation 
be free to all? 

Is not the monej payment for the so-called re- 
lease of souls from Purgatory a human invention 
for filthy lucre, without the slightest warrant in 
the word of God ? 

Do you think it just that a rich man, simply 
because he has bequeathed money for Masses, 
should be liberated sooner from Purgatory than 
th^ poor man who leaves nothing, and has no 
wealthy friends to give money to the priest? 
Why have different prices for High and Low 
Mass? 

We do not charge for Masses. The sin of 
Simon Magus consisted in his endeavoring to 
purchase the apostolic gift of miracles. Simony 
in every form — that is, the buying and selling 



458 The Question Box, 

of benefices, bishoprics, and abbacies, traffic in 
Masses, etc. — has ever been denounced as a 
grievous sin by the Catholic Church, and sever- 
est measures possible taken to guard against it 
(cf. Alzog, " Universal Church Hist.," vol. ii. 
pp. 160, 327, 369, 487). Her words to the 
simoniacal are the words of the first Pope, St. 
Peter : * ' Keep thy money to thyself, to perish 
with thee, because thou hast thought that the 
gift of God may be purchased with money. 
. . . Thy heart is not right in the sight of 
God. Do penance, therefore, for thy wicked- 
ness" (Acts viii. 20-23). 

The honoraria, or stipends, for Masses are not 
the purchase-price of the Holy Sacrifice, but 
offerings or donations made by the people, in a 
spirit of love for the Church, to provide for the 
support of the clergy. The custom of making 
this donation dates from the twelfth century, for 
prior to this the people made at the offering of 
the Mass donations of all those things required 
for the carrying on of divine service, viz., bread, 
wine, oil, incense, etc. 

The Church allows the priest to receive 
money for only one Mass a day ; and if more 
Masses are asked for than he can say, he is 
bound to have them said by other priests — - 
generally in poor districts where no offerings are 
made. As for the variation in stipends for a Re- 
quiem High Mass, we must take into account 



The Mass. 



459 



the expense incurred for the extra services of 
organist, choir, etc. 

Of course abuses have occurred and will oc- 
cur, for "the desire of money is a root of all 
evil " (I. Tim. vi. 10), as the Apostle tells us. 
The logical mind, however, will always ascribe 
these abuses to the sins of the individual, and 
not to the Church, which is most zealous to do 
away with them. 

The religious duty of supporting the clergy 
is clearly set forth in the Old and New Testa- 
ment, and the Catholic Church commands her 
children to do so by a special precept. In the 
Old Law the Jews set aside one-tenth of their 
flocks for their priests: "Of all the tithes of 
oxen and sheep and goats that pass under the 
shepherd's rod, every tenth that cometh shall 
be sanctified to the Lord" (Lev. xxvii. 32; 
Gen. xxviii. 22), Again, God ordered the 
people to make certain specified donations to 
the priests when they exercised their ministry. 
Thus,- women after child-birth offered the priest 
"a lamb for a holocaust, and a young pigeon, 
or a turtle, for sin" (Lev. xii. 6); or if too 
poor, like the Blessed Virgin (Luke ii. 24), two 
turtle doves, or two young pigeons, . . . 
"and the priest shall pray for her" (Lev. 
xii. 8}. 

In the New Testament St. Paul expressly 
teaches the same duty : " Know yo\x not, that 



460 



The Question Box. 



they who work in the holy place, eat the things 
that are of the holy place ; and that they who 
serve at the altar, partake with the altar. So 
also the Lord ordained that they who preach 
the gospel should live by the gospel 99 (I. Cor. 
ix. 13, 14). 

The custom, therefore, of making donations 
to the priesthood is sanctioned by God Him- 
self. Why, even non-Catholics, on the occa- 
sion of a marriage or baptism, give a donation 
to their ministers. Do they consider this sim- 
ony? Why, in all fairness, is it right for the 
minister to accept his marriage fee, and yet 
wrong for a priest to receive a stipend for a 
Mass? The principle involved is identical in 
both cases. 

As a matter of fact, it is the poor, and not 
the rich, who, as a general rule, contribute 
most generously to the support of the Church 
and the priesthood in our country. As for the 
objection about praying souls out of purgatory, 
one which I have frequently met with on mis- 
sions to non-Catholics, I would say that the 
Catholic Church claims no j urisdiction over souls 
in the other world, and professes absolute ignor- 
ance regarding God's particular application of 
the infinite merits of the passion and death of 
His Son to the souls in purgatory. All Masses 
and prayers for the dead are applied "by way 
oT suffrage 99 — that is, are dependent on God's 



The Mass. 



461 



secret mercy and will, who in His infinite 
justice may apply to another soul altogether 
the Masses said for a certain individual. 

Non-Catholics generally think that five hun- 
dred Masses have five hundred times the effi- 
cacy of one. This is not the case. The value 
of each Mass is infinite, but we never know 
with perfect certainty whether or not God has 
applied it to the individual soul for "whom it 
has been offered, although we do know He 
answers all our prayers. 

Non- Catholics also forget that thousands of 
Masses and prayers are offered up yearly for 
all the souls in purgatory, and that in every 
Mass a special prayer is said by the priest for 
all the faithful departed: "To these, O Lord, 
and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we pray 
Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. 
Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen" 
(Memento for the dead). There is no danger 
that God will allow any soul to suffer more than 
it deserves, or that one's poverty w r ill make a 
soul less pleasing in God's sight. Besides, 
thousands of Masses are said yearly by priests 
for individuals too poor to make any donation 
whatsoever. 

Why do you carry on your services in a tongue 
not known by the people ? Why not say Mass 
in the language of the congregation? 



462 



The Question Lex. 



Why do priests preach in Latin ? Why do you 
deliver so many of your sermons in Latin? Is it 
to keep the people in ignorance? 

Sermons are never preached to the people in 
Latin, but always in their own tongue. As to 
the words of the Mass and other official services, 
we do not consider the use of the Latin lan- 
guage essential, for in the East the use of the 
vernacular is permitted. The Latin language, 
however, is the official language of the Catholic 
Church in her liturgy, councils, etc., for many 
reasons : 

1st. Historically, it bears witness to the ori- 
gin of the faith of Western Christendom, Rome, 
the converter of the nations — for instance, 
France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England, 
Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland. 
The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, 
when the Roman Empire was supreme, natu- 
rally adopted in her liturgy the language of 
the people, and her missionaries kept the lan- 
guage of Rome in the divine service even w T hen 
they had to preach in the vernacular. Prot- 
estant churches, born in modern times, adopted 
as a consequence the modern languages. 

2d. Again, Latin being a dead language, is 
free from all those changes inevitable to modern 
tongues. In these latter, words are continually 
becoming obsolete, and so . change in meaning 
as to become unintelligible and ridiculous to the 



The Mass, 



463 



ears of succeeding generations. Latin, there- 
fore, preserves the dignity of the liturgy and 
the perfect exactness of the dogmatic decrees of 
Councils, so necessary in a perennial, unchange- 
able Church. 

3d. A Universal Church, moreover, should 
have a universal language. It is the same 
principle that made business men some years 
ago endeavor to establish Volupiik as a com- 
mon means of communication, or medical men 
of late discuss the advisability of adopting some 
common language in their congresses. Did any 
one ever object, for example, to French as the 
language of diplomacy ? Latin allows the 
Catholic people to feel at home everywhere in 
the universal bond of a common language at 
their Sunday Mass, and enables the Catholic 
bishops of the world to correspond easily with 
the Roman See, and discuss matters of dogma 
and discipline in the councils of the Universal 
Church. 

4th. In the Jewish synagogue the services 
were conducted in Hebrew even after it had 
ceased to be the language of the people, who 
lost it at the time of the Captivity (II. EsdrasviiL 
13). And so in the East to-day the Melchites 
say Mass in Greek and the Syrians in Syriac, 
although Arabic is the language of the people. 

Indeed, there is no reason for fault-finding, 
for remember that in those parts of the service 



464 



The Question Box. 



that we have in common with Protestants, 
namely, preaching, public prayers, and hymn- 
singing, we use the language of the people. 
But the Mass with us is more of an action than 
a prayer — an act of sacrifice which the priest 
offers up in the name of Christ for the people. 

The people are, therefore, perfectly free to 
follow their own special devotion in the manner 
of hearing Mass, either meditating on the pas- 
sion and death of Jesus Christ, or, if they so 
desire, following the prayers of the liturgy in 
the translations to be found in their prayer- 
books. It would indeed be practically impos- 
sible in some of our large churches for the 
priest to be understood, even if he did celebrate 
Mass in English, and as a matter of fact the 
liturgical laws of the Church command that 
certain prayers be read, for sake of greater rev- 
erence, in a very low voice. There is no more 
necessity for the people of our day understand- 
ing what the priest says than of old when Jew- 
ish priests prayed alone in the Tabernacle at 
the hour of sacrifice (L,uke i. 9, 10). 

I have frequently wondered why so many 
otherwise well-informed non-Catholics imagined 
that w r e preached in Latin to our congregations. 
Aside from ignorance arising from deliberate 
calumny in the past, I know of no way to ac- 
count for this save that some Protestants attend- 
ing a Catholic burial service have mistaken the 



The Mass. 



465 



Latin liturgical prayers read by the priest over 
the body of the deceased for a sermon to the 
people. 

Does not St. Paul condemn your use of Latin 
when he says : " Yet in the chufch I had rather 
speak five words with my understanding, that 
by my voice I might teach others also, than ten 
thousand words in an unknown tongue"? (I. 
Cor. xiv. 19). ) 

No ; St. Paul is not speaking of the liturgy 
of the Church at all, but is condemning those 
Christians at Corinth who, instead of teaching 
the people, were merely making an ostentatious 
display of their miraculous gift of tongues — 
praying and preaching words unintelligible to 
their hearers without an interpreter. In the 
Catholic Church all the sermons, instructions, 
and private prayers are in the language of the 
people. 

Why did the Protestant translators of this 
chapter add the word ' * unknown ' ' in verses 
2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27, and omit this same 
word in verses 18 and 39, where the use of un- 
known tongues is approved ? The same phrase 
occurs in the Greek original: M I thank my 
God I speak with (unknown) tongues more than 
ye all.' ' ' 1 Wherefore, brethren, . . , for- 
bid not to speak with (unknown) tongues " (w. 
18 and 39). 



466 



The Question Box. 



Why, again, were the Irish people, in the 
reign of Queen Elizabeth, compelled by statute 
to be present at the reading of the English lit- 
urgy, which they did not understand, if Prot- 
estants were so zealous for having service cele- 
brated in the language of the people? (P. 
Heylin, "Hist, of Reformation," p. 128). 



ORDERS. 

May not any one who is filled with the Apos- 
tolic spirit preach the Gospels of Christ without 
going through a ceremony of so-called ordina- 
tion ? 

No, for the Scriptures expressly declare there 
must be a divine commission to teach : 
' ' Neither doth any man take the honor to 
himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron 
was " (Heb. v. 4) ; and again, " How can they 
preach unless they be sent" (Rom. x. 15; 
cf. Matt, xxviii. 19). 

Our Lord instituted the Christian priesthood 
when he gave his Apostles and their successors 
the power to offer up the sacrifice of the Mass 
(Matt. xxvi. 26-28; I. Cor. xi. 23-25), and to 
forgive and retain sins (John xx. 23). This 
power was to be handed down by the sacrament 
of Orders (Trent., Sess. xxiii. can. 2), spoken 
of by the Apostle: " Neglect not the grace 
which was given thee by prophecy, with impo- 



Orders, 



467 



sition of the hands of the priesthood " (I. Tim. 
iv. 14) ; M I admonish thee that thou stir up the 
grace of God, which is in thee by the imposi- 
tion of my hands'' (II. Tim. i. 6). We have 
here a special sacrament : the external sign, 
namely , the imposition of hands and prayer, the 
grace conferred thereby, and the institution by 
Christ (cf. Acts vi. 6 ; xiii. 2, 3; xiv. 22; I. 
Tim. v. 22; Tit. i. 5). 

Is there the slightest evidence of episcopacy 
in the primitive Church ? Were not bishop and 
presbyter synonymous terms ? 

It is undoubtedly true that in the New Testa- 
ment the words Bishop (Episcopos) and Priest 
( Presbuteros) were applied without distinction 
to the same person (Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit. i. 
5-7), but it by no means follows from this that 
they had the same office and dignity. The 
Bishops, for instance, of the third century were 
often called presbyteri, although their superi- 
ority over priests was everywhere acknowl- 
edged. The distinction is mentioned by Clem- 
ent of Rome (a. d. ioi), and most clearly and 
distinctly brought out in the letter of Ignatius 
Martyr (a. d. 105-117). Even St. Jerome, 
who is often adduced to the contrary, says 
clearly: "What, except ordination, can a 
bishop do that a priest cannot do?" (Epis. 
101). There is no evidence in all history of a 



468 



The Question Box. 



priest having the power to ordain. Indeed, at 
the second Council of Alexandria, under Hosius 
(a. d. 324), all the ordinations of Colluthus, an 
Alexandrine priest, were declared null and 
void. This power, too, is clear from St. Paul, 
who advises the Bishops Timothy and Titus to 
" ordain priests in every city" (Tit. i. 5), and 
" not to impose hands lightly on any man M (I. 
Tim. v. 22 ; Alzog, vol. i. pp. 198-204). 

Why do Catholics call their priests " father,' ' 
when Christ says : " Call no man father upon the 
earth; for one is your Father, which is in 
heaven"? (Matt, xxiii. 9). 

If this passage is to be taken universally, it 
would be wrong to call our parents father, or 
our teachers master. Our Lord merely meant 
to rebuke the pride of the Scribes and Phari- 
sees, who gloried in the salutation of Rabbi, 
father, etc. 

The word "Father" is given by Catholics 
to their priests from their sense of his spiritual 
relationship to them, and is fully sanctioned by 
Holy Scripture. St. Paul says : " For if you 
have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not 
many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the 
gospel, I have begotten you " (I. Cor. iv. 15). 
Again, he calls Timothy "his beloved son" 
(I. Tim. i. 2), and St. John calls the early 
Christians "little children " (I. John ii. 18). 



Religious Communities. 469 



RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES. 

Can we not serve God by serving mankind, 
thus following Christ's example ? Why then the 
life of the recluse and the cloistered orders ? 

What is the good of religious communities ? 
Is there any mention of them in the Bible ? Are 
they essential to Christianity ? Is it not un- 
manly to subject one's will to another under 
vow? Is not a life of perpetual chastity im- 
possible ? Is it not the duty of good men and 
women to stay in the world and make it better 
by their good example ? Did not Christ say : 
"Let your light so shine," etc. t (Matt. v. 16;. 

There is no mention of our religious orders 
in the Bible, any more than there is mention of 
hospitals, foundling asylums, homes for the 
aged, or pest-houses for the leper. But the 
ideal that prompts their organization is there — 
the example and teaching of the poor, obedient, 
heroic Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and of the 
early Christians. Religious orders of this or 
that special kind could all be suppressed to-mor- 
row, and the Catholic Church would still exist in 
her dogmas, her morality, her discipline, her 
sacraments, and her divine infallible authority. 
But they are the natural fruit and flower of the 
tree of God's planting. The} 7 are the answer to 
that craving of the human heart for association 
in the perfect following of Christ. The com- 



47o 



The Question Box. 



mandments are for all under penalty of damna- 
tion ; the counsels of Christ are very different, 
and are for those who out of the generosity of 
their hearts desire to follow Him in the freedom 
of the way of perfection (Matt. v. 48). 

The New Testament gives us clearly the es- 
sence of the religious community — the love of 
God and the brethren for His sake. The privi- 
leged ones remember Christ's promise to be 
present in a special way to those that prayed in 
common (Matt, xviii. 20) ; they realize that 
self-denial and mortification are the true marks 
of perfect discipleship (Matt. xvi. 24) ; they 
practise poverty, because Christ " being rich 
became poor for our sakes" (Matt. viii. 20), 
while he told the young man of the Gospel : 
" If thou will be perfect, go sell what thou hast, 
and give to the poor, . , . and come follow 
me" (Matt. xix. 21); they observe chastity, 
because the virgin Christ was born of a virgin 
Mother, and praised virginity as the perfect life 
of the few. " He that can take it, let him take 
it" (Matt. xix. 12) ; they subject their will to 
another, because Jesus Christ came to do the 
will of His heavenly Father even unto the death 
of the cross, and was obedient unto Joseph and 
his mother Mary (John iv. 34 ; Phil. ii. 8 ; 
Luke ii. 51). 

Why should any one object to men and 
women banding together to serve God and the 



Religious Communities. 47 1 



brethren ? If in religious communities men can 
conquer more easily the temptations of pride, 
avarice, and lust, pray with greater fervor, fol- 
low out the counsels of the Saviour more per- 
fectly, and yet withal help the world by the 
greatest possible service of prayer, as in con- 
templative orders, or by the extraordinary 
charity and zeal in the active orders, why 
should men grudge them this liberty of asso- 
ciation, which is not denied to the man of 
business or politics, whose only God is too 
often self? 

Is chastity impossible? This question pro- 
ceeds only from the lips of those whose hearts 
are full of sin and passion, and know no higher 
ideal than that of carnal lust. It is an insult to 
the wives, sisters, and mothers of thousands. 

Is obedience unmanly and degrading ? The 
. Scriptures do not consider the obedience of a 
child to its parent or a wife to her husband de- 
grading (Eph. v. 22, vi. 1). No one calls the 
obedience of a soldier to the commands of his 
officer unmanly. Why should subjection to an- 
other out of love of God and in the things of 
God be evil, when subjection to another out of 
sell-interest and in the things of this life of 
business, politics, etc., is considered good? 

But, you object, men should not thus with- 
draw from society ; they should take their share 
of the burden. History is the witness how no- 



472 



The Question Box. 



bly and well the religious communities of men 
and women have served their fellow-men. Is 
there a man outside the Catholic Church whose 
charity for all has been more fruitful in good 
works than St. Vincent de Paul's? In the 
Middle Ages who but the monks were the pa- 
trons of literature, the arts and the sciences, the 
cultivators of the soil, the educators of the ig- 
norant ? Indeed, we have only to look around 
us to-day, and we must needs bear testimony to 
the wonderful work done by such devoted 
women as the Sisters of Charity, the Little 
Sisters of the Poor, the Sisters of the Good 
Shepherd, and the Sisters of Mercy. How 
many Protestants have written and spoken in 
their praise ? * * Father, ' 9 said one to me lately, 
" I don't know much about your Church, but I 
do know for a certainty that the good sisters of 
your Church are the best nurses in the world." 
Another : " Father, I saw the Sisters of Charity 
in the Civil War serving equally the Blue and 
the Gray, and serving me on what I thought 
my death-bed. I desire to join the Church, 
feeling convinced that the Church that inspires 
such devotion must needs be the Church of 
Christ.' ' A third : " I intend to send my girls 
away to school ; and though a non-Catholic, I 
feel the good influence of the sisters of your 
Church is something no money can buy." And 
^o witness on witness can be appealed to — Prot- 



Religious Communities. 473 



estant, Jew, and infidel alike — concerning the 
zeal, charity, and devotion of these women, 
who freely dedicate their lives to the service of 
the neighbor. The light of their good works 
does indeed shine forth before all men, so " that 
men give glory to our Father in Heaven." 

But why bind one's self to such a life by a 
vow ? The answer is simply this : that men and 
women have the same right and liberty in 
things divine as in things human, Is it a 
blessed thing to swear loyalty to a woman in 
the pure bond of marriage, and a curse to swear 
loyalty to Christ Jesus in the pure bond of a su- 
pernatural espousal ? The world may not un- 
derstand, but that is rather due to its spirit 
being alien to Christ, for " the sensual man per- 
ceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of 
God ; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot 
understand, because it is spiritually examined " 
(I. Cor. ii. 14). 

"I can understand," says another, "the 
charitable work done by the Apostolic men and 
women in your Church ; but what is the good 
of contemplative orders ?" To a busy, utilita- 
rian, and materialistic age it does indeed seem 
strange that men should retire from the world 
merely to pray. But to the Christian, who 
knows the value and efficacy of prayer, as wit- 
nessed to in the Old and New Testaments, 
there is no difficulty. He realizes the great 



474 



The Question Box. 



lack of prayer iu the world. He knows that 
these contemplative orders make atonement for 
the sins of many, ask God's mercy upon His 
people, and give Kim the glory, the praise, and 
the honor denied by those who will not serve, 
like Satan of old. The efficacy of such prayers 
will not be known until the day of Judgment. 

In conclusion, let men divest themselves of 
their prejudices, and study the history of the 
saints of the religious orders, as is being done 
to-day by many outside the Catholic Church, 
and all his objections will disappear like mists 
before the rising sun. One does not learn the 
beauties of the landscape from a blind man, or 
the blessings of a country's institutions from 
one w 7 ho has proven traitor to it. So fair- 
minded men should not listen to the false and 
impure utterances of a wicked priest who has 
been false to his Church, or an outcast woman, 
who, in return for the charity of the sisters who 
rescued her from the streets, poses impudently 
to a curious world as an 1 ' escaped nun ' ■ and 
calumniates for a price the Church that helped 
her in her need. 

Were not the monks of the Middle Ages an 
idle, ignorant, and immoral set of men ? 

Sometimes, indeed, in the course of history 
we read of monasteries that relaxed their 
ancient discipline, and became a scandal to the 



Religious Communities. 475 



Church of God. But, as the Protestant his- 
torian Maitland says: "It appears to be the 
testimony of history that the monks and the 
clergy, whether bad or good in themselves, 
were in all times and places better than other 
people" (Preface to "The Dark Ages," p. 8). 
Again, he speaks of monasteries "as a quiet 
and religious refuge for helpless infancy and 
old age, a shelter of respectable sympathy for 
the orphan maiden and the desolate widow ; as 
central points whence agriculture was to spread 
over bleak hills and barren downs and marshy 
plains, and deal bread to millions perishing 
with hunger and its pestilential train ; as re- 
positories of the learning which then was, and 
well-springs of the learning which was to be ; 
as nurseries of art and science, giving the stim- 
ulus, the means, and the reward to invention, 
and aggregating around them every head that 
could devise and every hand that could execute ; 
as the nucleus of the city, which in after days 
of pride should crown its palaces and bulwarks 
with the towering cross of its cathedral. This, 
I think, no man can deny" (S. R. Maitland, 
"The Dark Ages," p. 2). 

listen to another Protestant testimony (Cutts, 
" Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages," 
p. 9): "Their general character was, and con- 
tinued throughout the Middle Ages to be, that 
of wealthy and learned bodies ; influential from 



476 



The Question Box. 



their broad possessions, but still more influen- 
tial from the fact that nearly all the literature 
and art and science of the period was to be 
found in their body. They were good land- 
lords to their tenants, good cultivators of their 
demesnes; great patrons of architecture and 
sculpture and painting ; educators of the people 
in their schools ; healers of the sick in their 
hospitals ; great alms-givers to the poor ; freely 
hospitable to travellers ; they continued regular 
and constant in their religious services ; but in 
housing, clothing, and diet they lived the life 
of temperate gentlemen rather than of self- 
denying ascetics. Doubtless, as we have said, 
in some monasteries there were evil men, whose 
vices brought disgrace upon their calling ; and 
there were some monasteries in which weak or 
wicked rulers had allowed the evil to prevail.' ' 
No one at all conversant with the Middle Ages 
can deny that the monasteries were the centres of 
the intellectual life of the age ; that their build- 
ings, farms, libraries, prove that every moment 
of the day was busily employed according to 
strict rule ; that the universal respect in which 
the monks were held by their contemporaries 
witnesses to their high moral and religious 
character. 

Did not Henry VIII. dissolve the monasteries 
in his time because of their gross immorality? 



Religious Communities. 477 



No, lie suppressed six hundred monasteries 
in a few years (1536-1547) that he might con- 
fiscate their property. No one who knows his- 
tory can accuse this wretch of a king, whose 
whole life is marked with lust and murder, of 
any zeal for religion or morality (Dom Gasquet, 
1 £ Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries " ; 
Cobbett, "History of the Reformation"). 

Were not recalcitrant nuns walled up alive in 
the Middle Ages? 

1 ' To any one who honestly looks into the 
matter it will be clear that no statutes of any 
religious order have yet been brought forward 
which prescribe such punishment, that no con- 
temporary records speak of its infliction, that 
no attempt is made to give details of person or 
time, that the few traditions that speak of the 
discovery of walled-up remains crumble away 
the moment they are examined, that the growth 
of the tradition itself can be abundantly ac- 
counted for, that the few historians or anti- 
quaries of repute, whether Catholic or Prot- 
estant, who have looked into the matter, either 
avowedly disbelieve the calumny or studiously 
refrain from repeating it " (Rev. H. Thurston, 
S.J., "The Myth of the Walled-up Nun," 
Catholic Truth Society Publications. Cf. 
"The Immuring of Nuns," by same author). 



478 



The Question Box. 



Are women detained in nunneries against their 
will? Why are not convents open to public 
inspection ? 

Because they are private dwellings. Would 
you want your home open to every stranger, 
good or bad? They can always be visited by 
the Bishop of the diocese, or any one who takes 
the proper means to be introduced there. The 
objection seems based on that false notion which 
is so prevalent among non-Catholics, that only 
weak-minded women under stress of some 
strong emotion, as disappointed love, fanati- 
cism, great sorrow, and the like, take the vows 
that bind them willy-nilly in a bondage worse 
than death. Much of the evil that has been 
suggested originates from apostate priests, or 
abandoned women who have been under the 
care of the good sisters for a time, and repay 
their benefactors by calumniating them for 
money. How different the facts to one who 
investigates at first hand. Many of the noblest 
women in the world have freely given up all 
that the world holds dear, friends, ambition, 
wealth, social position, to serve God in poverty, 
chastity, and obedience in the silence of the 
cloister, or to minister to the wants of the sick s 
the aged, and the poor. 

Why cannot women preach the Gospel as well 
as men ? 



A ngl ica 11 Orders. 



479 



It has ever been the tradition of the Catholic 
Church that women, however high their office 
as wives and mothers, were incapable of ordina- 
tion, according to the teaching of St. Paul: 
"Let women keep silence in the churches, for 
it is not permitted them to speak ; but to be 
subject, as also the law saith. It is a shame 
for women to speak in the church/' (I. Cor. xiv. 
34> 35)- "Let the women learn in silence, 
with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman 
to teach nor to use authority over the man, but 
to be in silence" (I. Tim. ii. n, 12). 

Tertullian in the third century reproaches the 
heretics of his time for their denial of this cus- 
tom. M The very women of these heretics," he 
writes, "how wanton they are! For they are 
bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exor- 
cisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to 
baptize" (De Prsesc. xli.) 



ANGLICAN ORDERS. 

What is the attitude of your Church regarding 
Anglican Orders ? 

Why do Catholics deny the validity of the 
ordinations in the Episcopal Church ? 

Pope Leo XIII., after a careful study of the 
question, declared, in the Bull Apostolica Curce, 
September 13, 1896, the invalidity of Anglican 
orders: "Wherefore, strictly adhering in this 



480 



The Question Box. 



matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs our prede- 
cessors, and confirming them most fully, and, 
as it were, renewing them by our authority, of 
our own motion and certain knowledge, we pro- 
nounce and declare that ordinations carried out 
according to the Anglican rite have been, and 
are, absolutely null and utterly void." 

The two reasons for this condemnation were : 
ist, the defect of form in the rite used, viz., the 
Edwardine Ordinal ; 2d, the defect of intention 
in the minister. Pope I^eo says: "From (the 
Anglican rite) has been deliberately removed 
whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the 
priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form con- 
sequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient 
for the sacrament which omits what it ought 
essentially to signify. The same holds good of 
Episcopal consecration. As the sacrament of 
Order, and the true priesthood of Christ, were 
eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence 
the priesthood is in nowise conferred truly and 
validly in the Episcopal consecration of the 
same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the 
episcopate can in nowise be truly and validly 
conferred by it ; and this the more so because 
among the first duties of the episcopate is that 
of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist 
and sacrifice. ,, 

It is historically certain that Cranmer and his 
followers, who drew up the Edwardine Ordinal 



Anglican Orders, 48 X 

of 1550, which was used at the consecration of 
the first Protestant archbishop, Parker, Decem- 
ber 17, 1559, did not believe in a sacrificing 
priesthood, but held that bishops and priests 
became such by the mere appointment of the 
crown. "In the New Testament," said Cran- 
mer, i ' he that is appointed to be a bishop or a 
priest needeth ?io consecration by the Scriptures, 
for election or appoi?itment thereto is sufficient" 
(Burnet, (< History of the Reformation, " vol. i. 
p. 201. Cf. Green, "History of the English 
People," vol. ii. p. 234; Iyondon, 1880. For 
Barlow's opinion read Burnet, ibid., and Col- 
lier's " Ecclesiastical History," vol. iv. p. 381). 
Their views are clearly set forth in the Thirty- 
nine Articles, which declared that orders 
- 1 would not be counted for a sacrament of the 
gospel" (Article XXV.), and the Mass "a 
blasphemous fable" (Article XXXI.) 

The new Protestant ordinal omitted all the 
anointings, the delivery of the vestments, and, 
although retaining the imposition of hands as a 
mere ceremony to signify the candidate's ap- 
pointment, it purposely omitted those essential 
words of the sacramental form which indicated 
the sacrificial character of the priesthood. The 
defective form ran as follows : 44 Take the Holy 
Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the 
grace of God which is in thee by the imposition 
of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit 



482 



The Question Box, 



of fear, but of power and love and soberness. M 
The Catholic argues that these men, who 
denied the sacrament of orders, and declared 
the essential power of the priesthood to be a 
blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit, 
could not have intended to ordain priests in 
the Catholic sense of the word. 

Says Pope Leo XIII.: " The Church does 
not judge about the mind or intention in so far 
as it is something by its nature internal ; but in 
so far as it is manifested externally, she is 
bound to judge concerning it. When any one 
has rightly and seriously made use of the due 
form and the matter requisite for affecting or 
conferring the sacrament, he is considered by 
the very fact to do what the Church does. On 
this principle rests the doctrine that a sacra- 
ment is truly conferred by the ministry of one 
who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the 
Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, 
if the rite be changed with the manifest inten- 
tion ot introducing another rite not approved 
by the Church, and of rejecting what the 
Church does, and what by the institution of 
Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, 
ihen it is clear that not only is the necessary in- 
tention w r anting to the sacrament, but that the 
intention is adverse to and destructive of the 
sacrament.' ' 

Moreover, historically speaking, it is not cer- 



Celibacy. 



483 



tain that Barlow, the consecrator of Parker, 
was ever consecrated. (On this point read 
Canon Estcourt, "The Question of Anglican 
Ordinations," pp. 60 et seq.\ Arthur Hutton, 
"Anglican Orders/ 9 p. 303; Bellasis, "Was 
Barlow a Bishop?") 

The Catholic Church has never wavered in 
her attitude. From the days of Queen Mary 
she has always denied the existence of Angli- 
can orders, by ordaining those ministers who 
wished on their conversion to enter the ranks 
of her apostolic priesthood (Galwey, " Ritual- 
ism," two volumes, Catholic Truth Society 
Publications; Sydney Smith, "Reasons for 
Rejecting Anglican Orders"; "Rome's Wit- 
ness against Anglican Orders 1 1 ; Articles on the 
Bull Apostolicse Curae in American Catholic 
Quarterly, Dublin Review, Ecclesiastical Review, 
London Tablet, etc.) 



CEUBACY. 
Where in the Bible are priests forbidden to 
marry ? 

Why is it that Catholic pries* 3 do not marry ? 

Because celibacy is one 'A the disciplinary 
laws of the Western Church, which every one 
who is ordained subdeacon vows to observe for 
life. While not a dogma of the Catholic 
Church, it is an obligatory law, imposed with a 



484 The Question Box. 

view to the dignity and duties of the priest- 
hood. 

Jesus Christ, himself a Virgin born of a vir- 
gin Mother, commends the state of virginity 
most highly (Matt. xix. 11-13) : " All men take 
not this word, but they to whom it is given. 
For there are eunuchs, who were born so from 
their mother's womb ; and there are eunuchs, 
who were made so by men ; and there are eu- 
nuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for 
the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let 
him take it." The Pharisees had questioned 
our Lord as to the lawfulness of divorce. 
Our Lord tells them that the Mosaic bill of 
divorce had been granted "by reason of the 
hardness of their hearts * ? (ibid.), contrary to the 
original law of marriage, which was the indis- 
soluble union of one man with one woman. 
" What therefore God hath joined together, let 
no man put asunder' ' {ibid.); st From the be- 
ginning it was not so" (ibid.) This doctrine 
seemed so hard that his hearers replied that 
celibacy would be preferable to such a lasting 
bond of marriage. " If the case of a man with 
his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry" 
(ibid.) Christ answers that some are celibates 
from natural defect, others from being made so by 
men, while a third class freely chooses this state 
of life for the kingdom of heaven (ibid ) It is 
not a commandment for all, but a counsel for 



r 

Celibacy. 485 

the few: "All men take not this word, but 
they to whom it is given' 9 {ibid.) Evidently 
our Lord expressly praises celibacy when vol- 
untarily undertaken for His service. 

The teaching of St. Paul is exactly the same 
(I. Cor. vii.) The Apostle himself led a life of 
celibacy and recommended it, as Christ had 
done, to those who felt called thereto : " I say, 
to the unmarried and to the widows : It is good 
for them if they so continue even as I. But if 
they do not contain themselves, let them 
marry 99 (vv. 8, 9). He declares, moreover, 
that there was no commandment of the Lord 
either to marry or to lead a life of celibacy ; 
both were the free choice of the Christian. 
M Concerning virgins, I have no commandment 
of the Lord" (ibid); " Art thou bound to a 
wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed 
from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, if thou 
take a wife, thou hast not sinned ; and if a vir- 
gin marry, she hath not sinned' 9 (vv. 27, 28). 
However, he expressly declares that the state 
of celibacy is a higher state than the state of 
marriage : 1 1 Therefore both he that giveth his 
virgin in marriage, doth well ; and he that giv- 
eth her not, doth better" (ibid,) Why, then, 
in face of the explicit example and teaching of 
Jesus Christ and His great Apostle Paul, can 
men question the excellence of the virgin life, 
and deny certain privileged souls the right of 



436 



The Question Box. 



following more closely in the footsteps of the 
Master ? 

St. Paul, again, gives us the practical reason 
why the priesthood of Christ practises celibacy : 
"He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the 
things that belong to the Lord, how he may 
please God. But he that is with a wife, is 
solicitous for the things of the world, how be 
may please his wife, and he is divided ' (vv. 
32, 33). The Catholic Church realizes well 
that better work can be done for God's people 
by a celibate clergy than by a married clergy. 
The married minister must needs divide his 
time, work, and money between his flock and 
family. He is hampered in his ministry by 
many household cares ; he must provide for his 
wife and children ; look after the education of 
his boys and girls, settle them in life, etc. So 
evident is this, especially when a married min- 
ister is living in a poor country district, or goes 
abroad 011 foreign missions, that some Prot- 
estants have advocated celibacy in these cases. 
A Presbyterian said not long since to me: " I 
do not care about men settled in big cities, like 
Calcutta or Pekin, with beautiful homes and 
comfortable salaries from America or England. 
But I've net some zealous men returning from 
a hard .mission, with a pale-faced w 7 ife and 
sickly children, who instead of helping him, 
were only a burden on his ministry/' 



Celibacy. 



We must remember also the vast difference 
between the duties of the Protestant minister 
and tlie Catholic priest. As a rule, the minis- 
ter preaches but one or two sermons a week, 
looks after the Sunday-school, and some few 
societies of men and women, and visits his 
flock, or certain portions thereof, from time to 
time. The Catholic priest, over and above his 
preaching, Sunday-school, societies and the 
like, is the servant of the people — at their beck 
and call every hour of the day and night. He 
must spend many a long hour in the confes- 
sional, bearing his people's burden of sin and 
sorrow ; he must venture out in the cold and 
rain and snow, no matter what the distance or 
the danger, to administer the last sacraments to 
the dying ; he must instruct his people in the 
dogmas of faith, and be ready at all times to 
answer the questions of outsiders, seeking for 
the light; he must advise, correct, and warn, 
when there is question of the gospel of Christ, 
and he cares for no man when duty is to be 
done. He is freer to face danger, because l.e 
never need question the effect of his actions on 
the affections, health, interests, or opinions of 
w T ife and familj*. How often has the world seen 
him speaking the word of comfort to the sick 
in the small-pox hospital, as in Philadelphia to- 
day ; hearing the confession of the dying soldier 
<on the firing-line, as American priests in the 



ci!i&8 The Question Box> 

" — — m 

late war with Spain; going from house to 
house in the city of the plague, and burying 
the dead with his own hands, as the sons of St. 
Vincent de Paul did in France in the seven- 
teenth century. 

Again, the people would not as a rule trust 
their secrets to a married clergy. M I believe 
in confession/' said a High-Church Episcopa- 
lian once to me, "just as much as you do. 
But I could not go to my minister.' ' " Why? " 
" He might tell his wife." Not that we ques- 
tion the honor of such men, but their whole 
trend and tendency veto practically their ever 
receiving the confidence of any great number 
of their flock. The Catholic priest hears the 
confessions of thousands. Often, on our Catho- 
lic missions, we hear eight and nine hundred 
confessions in one week. 

We know also of ministers who to support 
their families are obliged to engage in secular 
business during the week. Surely the soldier 
of Christ should be free from this. " No man, 
being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with 
secular business" (II. Tim. ii. 4). Indeed, a 
Catholic priest, with all the work that usually 
devolves upon him, would find it impossible. 
Imagine, too, an hereditary caste, formed in the 
Church of God, handing down property from 
father to son, and enriching relatives, to the 
great harm of the Church of God* Something 



Celibacy, 



489 



like this is the actual condition in the Russian 
Church, resulting from a married clergy. 

Is it not wi ong for your Church to impose the 
impossible an i intolerable burden of celibacy 
upon the clergjT? 

How can a ceHbate clergy be chaste ? Is not 
celibacy against iiature ? 

These objections date from Martin IyUther, 
whose sermon on the universal obligation of 
marriage would not bear repetition in any 
Christian pulpit of the world to-day. He fol- 
lowed out most exactly his own teaching by 
attempting to marry a nun, who broke her en- 
closure before breaking her vows. 

Celibacy is not impossible, for the grace of 
God is given abundantly to his priests to keep 
them pure. Would you say that all the unmar- 
ried find it impossible to be chaste ? Are your 
own unmarried children, sisters, widowed 
cousins, maiden aunts, and bachelor uncles im- 
pure? Are all husbands who for certain rea- 
sons are separated from their wives for a long 
period, bound to commit adultery? The objec- 
tion is a libel on the pure character of thou- 
sands, clerical and lay, and proceeds from 
hearts full of lust, who judge that others are 
even as they. Celibacy is not an intolerable 
burden, for it is voluntarily chosen by men and 
women who are old enough to know what they 



490 



The Question Box. 



are doing, and who feel freer thereby to serve 
God and the brethren. 

Men have declared it against nature„ Would 
you then forthwith compel every one to get 
married, whether he will or no ? If so unnatu- 
ral, why is it that virginity has been admired 
and practised all down the centuries, even 
among the pagans? Judaea, Greece, Rome, 
Gaul, Peru, all bear witness to the fact that 
chastity is not unnatural. 

Many have pointed to the scandals that have 
arisen from time to time. Will any man dare 
say that the married clergy — whether Greek, 
Russian, or Protestant — have been freer of scan- 
dals than the Catholic priesthood? Will you 
abolish marriage because thousands of men and 
women have broken their marriage vows? 
Voltaire, no lover of Christianity or the clergy, 
was forced to write : " The life of secular men 
has always been more vicious than that of 
priests; but the disorders of the latter have 
always been more remarkable, from their con- 
trast with the rule." And Dean Maitland : 
" In fact, it appears to be the testimony of 
history, that the monks and clergy ... 
were in all times and places better than other 
people" ("The Dark Ages," preface, p. 8, 
John Hodges, 1889). 

Did not celibacy originate in the desire of Poj)^ 



Celibacy. 49 1 

Gregory VII. to secure a greater control over the 
clergy ? 

No; celibacy originated by Christ's appoint- 
ment, and flows naturally cut of the Chris- 
tian sense of the dignity of the priesthood \ 
and voluntarily entered upon in Apostolic times, 
it became the law for the Western Church in 
the beginning of the fourth century. Pope 
Gregory VII. in the Roman s) nod of 1074 
merely revived the old laws, and enforced their 
observance under the severest penalties. 

I think priests ought to marry, because the 
husband and father develops a finer and kindlier 
nature, and gathers experiences which enable 
him to teach religion with greater force than the 
unmarried. 

It is rather stiange, in view of law-court sta- 
tistics, to declare that the husband and father 
necessarily develops a finer and kindlier r?ature. 
What kindlier man than the good old parish 
priest, loved by all— old and young, rich and 
poor, cultured and uncultured ? 

Again, whose experience is wider and more 
varied than the priest, who is trusted as no 
other living man with the secrets of all in the 
sacred tribunal of the sacrament of penance? 
To say that a priest ought to marry the better 
to understand how to teach men well, is about 
as sensible as to tell a physician to taste his 



492 



The Questio7i Box, 



every medicine in order to prescribe correctly 
for his patients. 

Does not God say in the first chapter of Genesis 
"increase and multiply " ? (Gen, i. 28). 

Yes ; but this is said as a general blessing on 
the race, and by no means implies that a man 
or woman who chooses to remain unmarried 
thereby breaks a commandment of God. 

Did not St. Paul say that he was married? 
"Have we not power to carry about a woman 
a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles and 
the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? " (I. Cor, 
ix. 5). 

The Apostle expressly states that he was not 
married (I. Cor. vii. 8). The above text by no 
means refers to a wife, but, as St. Jerome ex- 
plains (Contra Jovinian, i. 14), refers to the 
holy women who, according to Jewish custom, 
adopted by Christ himself, followed their reli- 
gious master about, and ministered to his wants 
(Matt, xxvii. 55). (" Was St. Paul married ?" 
American Catholic Quarterly, 1890, p. 697.) 

Was not St. Peter a married man ? 

He undoubtedly was, yet tradition declares 
that he did not live with his wife after the 
divine call (Jerome, Ep. 48 ad Pammachium) ; 
the words of St. Peter to Chris*- are plain : 



Celibacy. 



493 



"Behold we have left all things and have fol- 
lowed thee." What matters it, however, 
w r hether he were married or not? We have 
undoubtedly the example and the teaching of 
the Saviour and St. Paul as ample warrant for 
the discipline of Western Christendom in this 
matter. 

Why don't priests marry, when St. Paul says : 
"To avoid fornication, let every man have his 
own wif e ? " (I. Cor. vii. 2). 

The Apostle is not urging the unmarried to 
marry, as our questioner seems to imagine, for 
in this very chapter he extols virginity as a 
counsel of Christ and a higher state of life {ibid.) 
besides urging his own example {ibid.), the 
better to serve God {ibid.) 

On the contrary, he is exhorting (vv. 2-1 1) 
those already married to fulfil the duties of their 
state of life in all purity, to hate adultery, to 
shun divorce, polygamy, etc. 

Does not the Scriptures say : "It is better to 
marry than to burn" ? (I. Cor. vii. 9). 

Undoubtedly ; but these words of the Apostle 
in no way imply a general prohibition against 
celibacy. The Apostle is addressing the un- 
married, whom he advises to remain so, if they 
feel called, as he was, to follow Christ in the 
virgin life, and desire thereby to be freer in 



494 The Question Box. 

their work for the brethren. c * I say to the un- 
married, and to the widow : it is good for them 
if they so continue even as I " (vv. 8-33). 

If, on the contrary, men and women are liv- 
ing unmarried, the better to satisfy their lusts, 
and subject to carnal thoughts and desires (to 
burn), he urges them to marry. " But if they 
cannot contain themselves, let them marry. 
For it is better to marry than to be burned (to 
burn)." 

So in like manner to-day the Catholic priest 
advises a higher grade of souls to follow out 
our Lord's counsel of virginity ("All men take 
not this word, but they to whom it is given, " 
Matt. xix. 11), but he warns all others to 
marry and not to take upon themselves the vow 
of virginity, whether in the priesthood or the 
cloister. 

Do not the Scriptures teach that " it behooveth 
a bishop to be the husband of one wife " ? (I. 
Tim. iii. 2; cf. Tit. i. 6 ; I. Tim. iii. 12). 

Until the fourth century (Council of Elvira, 
305; Aries, 314; and Ancyra, 314) there was 
no strict law enforcing celibacy, and therefore 
many married men received orders. The texts 
in question show not that all deacons and 
bishops should be married men — St. Paul him- 
self was not — but that no one would be con- 
sidered fit for ordination who had been twice 



Celibacy. 



495 



married. Any one conversant with tlie writings 
of the early Church Fathers is fully aware of 
their horror of second marriages. Indeed, the 
same law against ordaining a widower who has 
been twice married exists in the Church to this 
day, as proof positive of the ancient Christian 
interpretation of this text of Holy Scripture. 

Doss not St. Paul reckon "forbidding to 
marry " as one of the doctrines of the devil? 
(I. Tim. iv. 3). 

St. Paul is denouncing the early Ebionite, 
Marcionite, and Manichean heretics who con- 
demned marriage as evil in itself, and proceed- 
ing from an evil principle. The Catholic 
Church has always considered matrimony one 
of the seven sacraments of Jesus Christ, and 
therefore holy in itself and in all its relations. 

Does not St. Paul say that " marriage is hon- 
orable in all"? (Heb. xiiL 4). 

Undoubtedly : but this by no means implies 
a command that all should marry. He is 
addressing married people, and is urging them 
to be true to their vows; "for," he adds, 
1 * fornicators and adulterers God will judge * r 
(Heb. xiii. 4). He elsewhere explicitly de- 
clares that marriage is not honorable when en- 
teied into contrary to the law of God or of 
God's Church, as in the marriage of the inces- 



496 The Question Box. 



tuous Corinthian (I. Cor. v. 1-5), and of the con- 
secrated widows (I. Tim. v. 11, 12). Marriage 
is not honorable for the man or woman who has 
voluntarily vowed celibacy, as Martin lyUther 
had done. 

Every student of history knows that the 
Catholic Church has ever been the defender 
and guardian of the honor or dignity of the 
marriage bond. L,eo XIII., in his encyclical 
Arcanum, says: " It must be allowed that the 
Catholic Church has been of the highest service 
to the well-being of all peoples by her constant 
defence of the sanctity and perpetuity of mar- 
riage. 

"She deserves no small thanks for openly 
protesting against the civil laws which offended 
so grievously in this matter a century ago ; for 
striking with anathema the Protestant heresy 
concerning divorce and putting away ; con- 
demning in many ways the dissolution of mar- 
riage common among the Greeks; for declaring 
null and void all marriages entered into on con- 
dition of future dissolution ; and, lastly, for re- 
jecting, even in the early ages, the imperial 
laws in favor of divorce and putting away. 
And when the Roman Pontiffs withstood the 
most potent princes, who sought with threats 
to obtain the Church's approval of their 
divorces, they fought not only for the safety 
of religion, but even of that of civilization."'. 



Matrimony. 



497 



Why are priests allowed to marry in the 
East ? 

Because the Easterns follow the legislation 
of the Synod of Ancyra, 314 A. d., which gave 
permission to deacons to marry after ordination, 
provided they had obtained the permission of 
their bishops. Celibacy is a question of disci- 
pline, not of dogma, so that the Eastern 
churches that are united to Rome — for instance, 
the Maronites — are still permitted a married 
clergy. 

The evident intellectual and moral inferiority 
of the Eastern compared with the Western 
Church proves conclusively the wisdom of the 
West in enforcing celibacy. Father Gagarin, 
S.J., in his book "L,e Clerge Russe," gives 
such a picture of the degradation of the married 
Russian clergy, and its utter lack of influence 
over the people, that no one for an instant 
would desire to introduce such a state of affairs 
into the vigorous, strong clergy of Western 
Christendom. 



MATRIMONY. 
Why will not the Catholic Church allow 
divorce ? 

Is it not cruel to force a woman to live until 
the end with a drunkard or an adulterer ? 

Did not Christ expressly permit divorce in 
case of adultery ? " Whosoever shall put away 



49S 



The Question Box. 



his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall 
marry another, committeth adultery; and who 
so marrieth her which is put away, doth commit 
adultery'' (Matt. xix. 9). 

The absolute prohibition of divorce from the 
marriage bond, with the right to marry another, 
rests on the express words of Jesus Christ and 
His Apostle St. Paul (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 
7). The words of our Saviour are: "What 
therefore God hath joined together, let not man 
put asunder. . . . And He saith to them : 
Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry 
another, committeth adultery against her." 
" And if the wife shall put away her husband, 
and be married to another, she committeth 
adultery" (Mark x. 9-12). ''Every one that 
putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, 
committeth adultery ; and he that marrieth her 
that is put away from her husband, committeth 
adultery" (L,uke xvi. 18). 

St. Paul, commenting on these words of our 
Saviour, says : 

" But to them that are married, not I, but 
the lyord commandeth, that the wife depart not 
from her husband. And if she depart, that she 
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her hus- 
band " (I. Cor. vii. 10, 11). "A woman is 
bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, 
but if her husband die, she is at liberty ; let her 
marry to whom she will, only in the Lord" 



Matrimony 



499 



(ibid, 39). " For the woman that hath an hus- 
band, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the 
law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed 
from the law of her husband. Therefore, 
whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called 
an adulteress, if she be with another man ; but 
if her husband be dead, she is delivered from 
the law of her husband, so that she is not an 
adulteress if she be with another man " (Rom. 
vii. 2, 3). 

Words could not more clearly express the ab- 
solute prohibition of divorce with right to 
marry again. Nothing but death can dissolve 
the marriage bond, which the Saviour now re- 
stores to its primitive unity and indissolubility, 
abrogating for ever the Mosaic bill of divorce. 
To remarry during the life-time of wife or hus- 
band is clearly termed adultery by Christ and 
the Apostle. 

There are two other texts in St. Matthew's 
gospel which are frequently cited as granting 
the right of divorce in case of adultery; but a 
candid study of these passages will prove that 
our Saviour does not contradict his clear teach- 
ing elsewhere. "But I say to you, that who- 
soever shall put away his wife, excepting for 
the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit 
adultery; and he that shall marry her that is 
put away, committeth adultery " (Matt. v. 32). 
It is clear from these words that no exception 



5oo 



The Question Box, 



is made, for — ist. Our Lord is not speaking 
of a man putting away his wife io marry a?i- 
other, which He expressly forbade as a viola- 
tion of the sixth commandmert^ in Mark x. n : 
" Whosoever shall put away his wife, and 
marry anothe? , committeth adultery and in 
Luke xvi. 18 : M Every one that putteth away 
his wife, and marrieth another, committeth 
adultery.'' 2d. He clearly indicates that the 
marriage tie is indissoluble, for otherwise how 
could he call the remarriage of the repudiated 
woman adultery? "He that shall marry her 
that is put away, committeth adultery " (Matt, 
v. 32). 

The other alleged exception is Matt. xix. 9 : 
"And I say to you that whosoever shall put 
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and 
shall marry another, committeth adultery ; and 
he that shall marry her that is put away com- 
mitteth adultery." 

The argument of the defenders of divorce is : 
Whoever puts away his wife, except for adul- 
tery, and remarries, is an adulterer. Therefore, 
whoever puts "away his wife" for adultery, 
and remarries, is not an adulterer. The Catho- 
lic answers : Why cannot the conditional clause 
refer to the words that precede rather than to 
those that follow it? Every one must admit 
that it is at least doubtful whether the excep- 
tion for adultery refers to the right of separa- 



Matrimony. 



501 



tiononly or the right to remarry. The Catholic 
settles the doubt by having recourse .to the 
other clear passages of St. Mark, St. Luke, and 
St. Paul, and concludes with them that a man 
cannot remarry during the life-time of his wife 
without becoming an adulterer. 

The sense of Matt. xix. 9, then, is : Who- 
soever shall put away his wife, which shall not 
be lawful except for fornication, and shall 
marry another, etc. That this is not a forced 
interpretation is clear from the context. Our 
Lord is ■ restoring marriage to its primitive 
purity (" in the beginning it was not so," ibid. 
8) ; He is abrogating the Mosaic bill of divorce, 
and elevating marriage to the dignity of a 
Christian sacrament, which no human au- 
thority can nullify. "What therefore God 
hath joined together, let no man put asunder." 

It is ever a law of Scripture interpretation 
that an obscure text should always be ex- 
plained in the light of clear and explicit pas- 
sages. All doubt on the matter is settled for 
the Catholic by the divine, infallible witness of 
the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 7), 
which voices the constant tradition of the 
Church, and declares the text in question to re- 
fer only to separation from bed and board. 

Even non- Catholics, who do not regard mar- 
riage as a sacrament, have admired the Catholic 
Church for her firm stand in this matte" • espe- 



502 



The Question Box. 



cially in our age and country, where all are be- 
ginning to realize that the excessive laxity of 
our divorce legislation is a menace to the public 
good. When, in the sixteenth century, the 
Reformers doctrinally denied the sacramental 
character of marriage, and in their exercise of re- 
ligious authority granted divorces contrary to 
the law of Christ, they prepared the way for the 
modern disregard of the marriage tie which is 
somewhat akin to the notions prevalent among 
the pagans in the first centuries of the Roman 
Empire. 

We know that often in particular cases this 
law is hard in its application, although in the 
Catholic Church, for adultery, cruelty, and the 
like, separation from bed and board is granted, 
without, however, the liberty of marrying again. 
It is indeed hard to say to a young woman who 
has contracted an unhappy marriage, that she 
can never marry again as long as her husband 
lives. But the law of Christ is clear. And, 
moreover, history is the witness that the indi- 
vidual ought to yield to the higher interests of 
religion and society, which are materially in- 
jured by the permission of divorce. 

Does not Stc Paul allow divorce ? (I. Cor. vii. 
12-15). 

St. Paul is not speaking of the sacramental 
marriage between Christians at all. 



Matrimony. 



503 



He says (I. Cor. vii. 15) : "If any brother 
have a wife that believeth not, and she consent 
to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 
And if any woman have a husband that be- 
lieveth not, and he consent to dwell with her, 
let her not put away her husband. . . . 
But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. 
For a brother or eister is not under servitude in 
such cases. But God hath called us in peace.' ' 

The Catholic Church teaches that even by the 
law of nature marriage is commonly indissoluble ; 
but God can dissolve it, as He did under the 
Old I^aw. The only instance under the New 
L,aw of the dissolution of the bond of natural 
marriage is the one here mentioned by St. Paul, 
known as the Pauline privilege. If in a mar- 
riage between a Christian and one not baptized 
the unbeliever refuses to live w T ith the Chris- 
tian, or is willing to do so but strives to pervert 
or tempt the Christian to mortal sin, the latter, 
after having fulfilled certain conditions laid 
down by the Church law, is free to marry 
again. But it must be borne in mind that this 
refers exclusively to a marriage contracted be- 
tween unbaptized persons, one of whom after- 
wards becomes a baptized Christian. It then 
lies with the party remaining unbaptized as to 
whether or not the marriage shall be made per- 
petual. 



504 



The Question Box. 



Granted that your Church theoretically forbids 
divorce, does not its system of dispensations 
practically admit of many exceptions ? I know 
personally of divorced Catholics. 

No ; as a matter of fact we challenge any one 
to point out one divorce ever granted under the 
sanction of the Church after the consummation 
of a valid marriage. The firm stand of the 
Popes in this matter is evidenced in the protest 
against divorce by Nicholas I. against L,othair, 
by Urban II. and Paschal II. against Philip I. 
of France, by Celestine III. and Innocent III. 
against Philip II. of France, by Clement VII. 
and Paul III. against Henry VIII., and, lastl} T , 
by Pius VII. against Napoleon I. (cf. L,eo XIII., 
Encyclical Arcannni). 

As guardian of the Sacraments, she claims 
the right to make laws affecting their adminis- 
tration and reception. Thus she claims exclu- 
sive control over the sacrament of marriage, and 
besides the divine impediments, over which she 
has no power, she, for the good of society, has 
established other impediments, some diriment, 
which render an attempted marriage invalid, 
and others impeding, which, while not affecting 
the validity of the marriage, render the con- 
tracting parties guilty of grievous sin. Thus, 
a marriage of first cousins without a dispensa- 
tion would be invalid ; whereas the marriage of 
a Catholic to a baptized Protestant before a 



Matrimony. 



SOS 



minister would be valid, yet the Catholic party- 
would thereby commit grievous sin, involving 
recourse to the Bishop for pardon. 

By the same power wherewith she makes 
these laws, the Church, for the good of the in- 
dividual or for society, claims the right to dis- 
pense therefrom. One can readily conceive 
that in some instances the impediment would 
be a source of harm rather than of good. 

Whenever, therefore, you have met Catholics 
who seem to have married again after a divorce, 
one of two things is certain : ist, Either they 
are Catholics living outside the pale of their 
Church ; or, 2d, Their first marriage, which 
seemed valid in the eyes of the world, was in- 
valid from the beginning because of one of the 
diriment impediments of the Church or of God. 

Many outsiders realize the wisdom of the 
Catholic Church in her impediment laws. Gov- 
ernor Rollins, of New Hampshire, declared, 
about a year ago, that in a certain town of 
Maine, because of marriages between close rela- 
tions, there was an imbecile in nearly every 
family (Sacred Heart Review, Jan. 6, 1900, p. 4). 

Did not the Pope grant a divorce to the Em- 
peror Napoleon ? And again in the case of his 
brother Jerome ? 

No, the Pope did not grant a divorce in 
either case. 



506 



The Question Box. 



ist. Napoleon was married to Josephine de 
Beauharnais, March 9, 1796, by a civil cere- 
mony only. On December 1, 1804, the day pre- 
ceding the coronation of Napoleon, Josephine 
mentioned this fact to Pius VII., who had 
shared the common belief that she had been 
married according to the laws of the Church. 
Napoleon, who desired to be free to contract 
another marriage in hopes of an heir to the 
throne of France, was greatly displeased at this 
disclosure. Yet he hoped still to leave a loop- 
hole in the religious marriage ceremony, which 
was performed on the eve of the coronation by 
Cardinal Fesck, by purposely incurring the im- 
pediment of clandestinity which required the 
presence of the parish priest and two witnesses. 
The Pontiff, however, granted to the cardinal 
the necessary dispensation from this impedi- 
ment, so that the marriage was valid. Thus, 
Prince Jerome Napoleon in 1887 (" Napo- 
leon and his Detractors M ) wrote : ' Napo- 
leon and Josephine, who had been only civilly 
married in the time of the Directory, were 
united religiously by Cardinal Fesch, in order 
to satisfy the scruples of Josephine, on the eve- 
ning preceding the consecration, and in the 
presence of Talleyrand and Berthier, in the 
chapel of the Tuileries. I know this from the 
traditions of my family." The tribunal which 
declared the nullity of this marriage, therefore, 



Matrimony. 



507 



acted on false testimony which denied the reli- 
gious marriage, and exercised an authority it 
did not possess, for the Pope is the proper 
judge in such cases. The Pope had nothing 
whatsoever to do with the case. It never was 
brought before him. 

2d. As for the mairiage of Jerome Bonaparte 
with Miss Patterson in 1803, performed by 
Bishop Carroll of Baltimore, it was annulled in 
France by a civil decree March 21, 1805. The 
Pope, far from recognizing this, pronounced in 
a letter to the emperor that the marriage of his 
brother Jerome was perfectly valid according to 
the laws of the Catholic Church. (Parsons, 
" Studies in Church History,' 9 vol. v. ch. ii.) 

What proof have you that Luther sanctioned 
bigamy ? 

His permission to the Landgrave, Philip of 
Hesse, to take a second wife during the life- 
time of the first, and his published writings, 
afford ample proof. 

Philip of Hesse, a great friend of the Refor- 
mation, applied in 1539 to L,uther for authority 
to marry an additional wife, bigamy being pun- 
ishable at that time with death by the German 
law. In his letter he cites the example of the 
Old Law prophets, declares bigamy not forbid- 
den by the Old L,aw and the New, and person- 
ally declares it impossible for him to be pure 



5o8 



The Question Box. 



with only one wife. The Landgrave had in 
mind a published sermon of Luther, 1527, in 
which he said : " It is not forbidden that a man 
should have more than one wife. I could not 
forbid it to-day. But I would not advise it." 
(Cf. Luther's complete works, vol. xxxiii. p. 322 
et seq.) This permission was granted on condi- 
tion that it be kept secret (De Wette, Luther's 
Letters, etc., vol. v. pp. 237 et seq.) y and Philip 
was married March 4, 1540, to Margaret Von 
Sala by Melander, himself a minister with three 
wives living (Janssen, " History of the German 
People," vol. iii. p. 408). When the matter be- 
came public, Luther, on the principle that the end 
justifies the means, declared it lawful to deny 
the fact of the marriage. 1 1 What would it 
matter if, for the sake of greater good and of the 
Christian Church, one were to tell a big lie? M 
(Janssen, iii. 432). On this question read, 
"Luther: An Historical Portrait," J. Verres, 
ch. xxi. p. 312-329. 

MIXED MARRIAGES. 

Why is the Catholic Church so bitterly opposed 
to the marriage of Catholics with Protestants? 

If you consider it wrong, why do you grant 
a dispensation for money? 

What does your Church require of me — a Prot- 
estant — if I marry a Catholic girl ? Must I be 
baptized and join your Church? 



Mixed Marriages, 



509 



Can a Catholic and Protestant be married first 
by a priest, and afterwards by a minister to 
please the husband's Protestant parents? 

Why is not the marriage celebrated in the 
church ? 

The Catholic Church has always disapproved 
of mixed marriages, because : 1st. The Catholic 
party is in great danger of losing the faith. 
How frequently a strong-minded unbeliever, 
who daily ridicules all that a Christian woman 
holds dear, or a bigoted Protestant, who only 
manifests his hatred of the Catholic religion 
after marriage, is the cause of the apostasy of 
a weak-minded, indevout, and ill-instructed wo- 
man. In a non-Catholic environment, as in the 
Southern States, many such souls have drifted 
away from the Church. 2d. The possibility of 
the children being reared non-Catholics. How 
often the Catholic party dies, and the non-Cath- 
olic marries again, bringing up all the children 
in an alien faith. Moreover, the example of an 
unbelieving, indifferentist, or Catholic-hating 
parent will have a pernicious influence upon 
the children, unless counteracted in strong 
measure by the other parent, the Church and 
the school. Add to this the fact that many men 
refuse to allow their children to be baptized in 
the Catholic faith, despite their written promise 
to that efiect. 3d. The unhappiness that often 
follows in the train of such marriages. The 



The Question Box. 



non-Catholic, too, may at any time secure a 
divorce and remarry, while the Catholic cannot 
do so without grievous sin. 4th. The essen- 
tially distinct moral principles regarding the 
marriage relations held by Protestants generally 
and Catholics, w T ith regard to divorce, abor- 
tion, the limiting of the family. 

The Catholic Church grants a dispensation 
from the ecclesiastical law forbidding mixed 
marriages, because she hopes in certain par= 
ticular cases that these evils may be obviatedo 
She lays down three conditions : 1st. Both par- 
ties must promise that all the children be reared 
in the Catholic faith. 2d. The non-Catholic 
must promise not to interfere in any way with 
the religious life of the Catholic. 3d. The 
Catholic must promise to do everything possible 
—by prayer, good example, and persuasion— 
to bring the non-Catholic to the true faith. 

Dispensations are never granted for anything 
which is absolutely wrong or sinful, or against 
the divine law. They cannot be bought, but 
the stipends paid are simply fines imposed 
only on those who can readily pay them for the 
exception to the ordinary law of the Church 
The money obtained in this way is devoted to 
the support of religion and to charitable pur- 
poses ; the poor are granted dispensations gratis= 

The general law in this country — it is differ- 
ent abroad — which forbids the celebration of 



Mixed Marriages. 



such, marriages in the church, the blessing oi the 
parties and the ring, is witness of the Church's 
disapproval. 

If the Catholic party consents to a first or a 
second marriage by a minister, he is guilty of 
a public denial of the faith, and is cut off from 
all share in the sacraments of the Church. To 
take part in a false worship is regarded as prac- 
tical apostasy.. Indeed, this manner of proceed- 
ing is irrational. For if the Protestant regards 
the first marriage binding, why then go through 
a meaningless ceremony ; if invalid by his refus- 
ing to give consent, is it honest to deceive the 
priest, who would be bound to refuse acting as 
witness to a mock marriage? 

In countries where the civil law refuses to 
recognize the Catholic marriage as legal, the 
parties are allowed to go through the formality 
of a so-called civil marriage before a state offi- 
cial to insure their civil privileges. This en- 
forced appearance before the magistrate, how- 
ever, has no religious significance whatsoever. 

Does the Catholic Church regard the marriage 
of Protestants valid, or can a Protestant be di- 
vorced and marry again on entering your 
Church ? 

Two baptized Protestants (for instance, a 
Methodist and a L,utheran), who are married 
without being subject to any of the diriment 



512 



The Question Box. 



impediments of the Church, are as validly mar- 
ried as two Catholics, for they receive the sacra- 
ment of matrimony, which binds until death. 
The Catholic Church has no power to dispense 
in the divine law, which absolutely prohibits 
divorce. 

Do you recognize as valid a marriage per- 
formed by a Protestant minister or justice of the 
peace ? 

Yes, if otherwise valid — that is, if no diri- 
ment impediment exists — for the minister of the 
sacrament is not the priest or minister, but the 
contracting parties themselves. If, however, a 
Catholic is married before any one but a priest, 
he is guilty of the grievous sins of disobedience, 
scandal, and practical denial of the faith, so 
that the Church has severely legislated against 
this, excommunicating the guilty party and re- 
fusing absolution until recourse has been had to 
the Bishop of the diocese. 

The good Catholic wall always be married by 
the priest, whose duty it is to safeguard his 
people from contracting illicit or invalid mar- 
riages. 

Frequently, too, a Catholic who is married 
before a minister or justice contracts an invalid 
marriage, because the non-Catholic had never 
been baptized. 



Extreme Unction. 513 



Why are Catholics forbidden to marry in Lent ? 

The Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv., De 
Reform., c. 10) forbade the public solemniza- 
tion of marriage — that, is with a nuptial Mass, 
etc. — in Lent and Advent, because these are 
times of fasting and penance. Private mar- 
riages are not forbidden, although the Catholic 
people are strongly advised to observe the spirit 
of the Church's law by marrying outside the 
penitential season. 



EXTREME UNCTION. 

Why do priests anoint Catholics with oil when 
they are dying ? Does not the text of James v. 
14, 15 refer merely to the miraculous powers for 
healing in the early Church ? (I. Cor. xii. 9, 28, 
30). 

Because it is a sacrament instituted by Jesus 
Christ whereby, according to the Scripture, the 
sick being anointed with oil, in danger of death, 
and prayed over, receive, if necessary, the remis- 
sion of sins, the strengthening of the soul, and, 
if it be God's will, the restoration of health. 
" Is any man sick among you, let him bring in 
the priests of the Church, and let them pray 
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of 
the L,ord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the 
sick man, and the L,ord shall raise him up ; and 



514 The Question Box. 

if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him " 
(James v. 14, 15). 

We have here all the essentials of a sacra- 
ment, the outward sign — that is, the anointing 
with oil and prayer — the inward grace, in the 
saving and raising up of the sick man, and the 
forgiveness of sins. Although there is no men- 
tion of the institution of the sacrament in the 
Bible, the Apostolic practice is proof positive, 
together with the Church's infallible witness 
(Trent, Sess. xiv., De Ext. Unc), of its institu- 
tion by the Saviour. How indeed, in virtue of 
the clear words of St. James, can Bible Prot- 
estants entirely reject this sacrament? 

The passage in St. James does not refer 
merely to the gift of healing, which many who 
were not priests possessed, but to a sacrament 
which not only performed cures in certain cases, 
but also forgave sin through the ministry of the 
priesthood alone. Only Jesus Christ could give 
to an anointing with oil the power of remitting 
sins; the gift of healing was by no means coin- 
cident with the power of pardoning. (For the 
Fathers cf. " Faith of Catholics/* vol. iii. pp. 
206-210.) 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 515 



THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE 

SAINTS. 

What justification is there for your adoration 
of the Virgin? 
Do Catholics adore the Virgin Mary? 

No ; Catholics adore God alone. They love 
and honor Mary as the Mother of God and the 
greatest of His saints, but they know she is only 
a creature, and that therefore to adore her would 
be idolatry. " We adore no saints/ ' wrote St. 
Epiphanius in the fourth century. . . Let 
Mary, then, be honored, but the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost alone be adored" (Adv. Colly- 
rid, 1. xxix.) 

This accusation of idolatry, met even to-day 
so frequently in small country towns, although 
rarely in our large cities, where non-Catholics 
have more opportunity of unlearning the lies of 
the Reformation, was in the beginning a delib- 
erately dishonest charge, the better to cloak the 
robbery of the riches of the churches and mon- 
asteries in England and on the Continent. It 
is rather interesting, in view of the modern 
High-Church party movement in the Church of 
England, to read its Second Homily " against 
the peril of idolatry and the worshipping of 
images," and to think of the eight hundred 
years of so-called idolatry which preceded the 
pretended Reformation. Misrepresentation, cal- 



The Question Box, 



umny, pulpit declamation, forged catechisms, 
mistranslations of the sacred text (Col. iii. 5, 
Eph. v. 5, II. Cor. vi. 16, I. John v. 21, I. Cor. 
x. 7), and of the word " invocare" used by the 
Council of Trent, — these were the means em 
ployed to keep alive the stupid charge of idola- 
try, which many sincere Protestants to-day con- 
fess they are heartily ashamed of. (Northcote, 
" Mary in the Gospels " ; Nicolas, " The Virgin 
Mary " ; Newman, " Anglican Difficulties," 
vol. ii. ; Livius, "The Blessed Virgin in the 
Fathers"; Petilalot, "The Virgin Mother.") 

Does your Church believe the Virgin Mary to 
be like God, everywhere present ? 

Not at all ; omnipresence is ar attribute of 
God alone. We learn from the Scriptures that 
the saints of God know what happens here on 
earth, and offer our prayers to God. They 
most likely see our actions and hear our prayers 
in God and through God, whom they see face 
to face (I. Cor. xiii. 12). How they know, 
matters but little to the Christian. The power 
of the Blessed Virgin or the saints to answer 
our prayers no more implies omnipresence than 
my power to accede to the request of a friend 
three thousand miles away implies my presence 
in that place. When Eliseus saw the ambush 
prepared for the king of Israel, was he neces- 
sity in Syria at the time? (IV. Kings vl. 9)* 



The Blessed Virgin mid the Saints. 517 



By no means. So God can reveal our prayers 
to His mother and the saints in heaven as 
readily as He can give His revelations to His 
saints on earth. 

Can a human being be the mother of the eter- 
nal God? 

Why do you call the Virgin Mary the mother 
of God? 

Because she is the mother of the divine per- 
son, Jesus Christ, who is true God and true 
man. "And whence is this to me, that the 
mother of my L,ord should come to me?'* 
(Luke i. 43; cf. i. 35). "His Son, who was 
made to Him of the seed of David, according to 
the flesh" (Rom. i. 3). "God sent His Son, 
made of a woman" (Gal. iv. 4). 

Many Protestants, unaware of the true doc- 
trine of the Incarnation, call the Blessed Virgin 
the mother of Jesus, and not the mother of God, 
as though our Saviour existed in a twofold per- 
sonality — human and divine. The Catholic 
doctrine, however, is that the Second Person of 
the Blessed Trinity, in His divine nature eter- 
nally begotten of the Father, took to Himself 
from the womb of His Virgin Mother a human 
nature of the same substance as hers; and 
therefore the mother of that divine person, 
Jesus Christ, the. God- man, is in very truth the 
mother of God, 



The Question Box. 



As our mothers are not called the mothers of 
our bodies, but simply our mothers, because the 
soul which is directly created by God is united 
with the body in one human personality, so the 
Blessed Virgin is not called the mother of Jesus 
— that is, of the human nature alone — but sim- 
ply the mother of God, because the divine na- 
ture which is eternally begotten of the Father 
is united with the human nature in one divine 
personality. 

Strange indeed, too, I have met Episcopa- 
lians who in one breath admitted the authority 
of the first six General Councils, and yet in the 
next denied the divine maternity which was ex- 
pressly declared by the Third Ecumenical 
Council of Ephesus, in 431, against the Nesto- 
rians. Strange, again, that the followers of 
IyUther and Calvin seem unaware of the fact 
that both of these reformers never questioned 
Mary's claim to be called the Mother of God. 
(Luther, "Deutsche Schriften," vol. xlv. p. 
250; Calvin, "Com. sur Thar. Evang., p. 20) 

Why do you pay so much honor to the Blessed 
Virgin, when she was only an ordinary woman 
on earth? 

The Blessed Virgin was not an ordinary wo- 
man. Would the Father, having the choice of 
countless millions, create an ordinary woman to 
be the mother of His only begotten Son ? , It is 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 519 



preposterous even to imagine it. On the con- 
trary, she is the most extraordinary of women, 
before whom the greatest saints of the Old Law 
and the New, pale as do the stars at the rising 
of the sun. 

We honor her as the masterpiece of God — 
whom God honored, indeed, above all creatures 
in her divine maternity. An ordinary woman ? 
Why the prophet Isaias tells of her (Isa. vii. 14) 
coming ; the court of heaven sends an embassy 
to her (Luke i. 26) and to her spouse Joseph 
(Matt. i. 20); the Angel Gabriel salutes her 
with the w r ords "Hail, full of grace, the Lord 
is with thee ; blessed art thou among women ' ' 
(Luke i. 28) ; her cousin St. Elizabeth greets 
her, "Blessed art thou among women, and 
blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence 
is this to me, that the mother of my Lord 
should come to me ? " (id., 43); and Mary her- 
self prophesies truly : ' ' Behold from henceforth 
all generations shall call me blessed " (id., 48). 
Are not we therefore, who daily fulfil this 
prophecy, stamped thereby as belonging to the 
generations of God's people? Must we not 
love her who was close to Christ from Bethle- 
hem to Golgotha ? Must we not love the Virgin 
Mother of God, immaculately conceived and 
sinless, who shows the world what human na- 
ture is capable of through the grace of God, 
who teaches men the dignity of motherhood 



520 



The Question Box. 



and the purity of virginity, which the pagans 
of those days had forgotten? I could never 
understand why Protestants seem so jealous of 
the love we have for the sweet Mother of God. 
I never could understand how men hoped to ex- 
tol the Christ by belittling the mother He loved 
so dearly. Every true child resents bitterly the 
slightest disrespect to a beloved mother. Is 
Christ, the Son of God, an exception to the law 
He himself planted in the hearts of men ? 

God could no more be jealous of the love we 
have for Mary, the masterpiece of His creation, 
than an artist jealous of the picture he painted, 
or an author jealous of the book he had 
written. 

Do not the terms applied to the Virgin in 
Catholic prayer-books border on blasphemy ? 
She is sometimes called "the only hope of 
Christians,' 9 "the mother of grace," etc. ? One 
prayer says : " Mary, command thy Son ! " 

We readily grant that some expressions in 
Catholic prayer-books or books of devotion are 
literally inexact and exaggerated ; but there is 
no semblance of blasphemy, for every Catholic 
knows perfectly their true sense. We must in 
all honesty carefully distinguish the language 
of devotion from the language of dogma. To 
the unprejudiced the exaggeration, if there be 
any, will always be manifest, and the accuracy 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 521 



of dogma may be easily obtained by consulting 
a catechism or a manual of theology. 

Often the impassioned words characteristic of 
the Italian or Spaniard may be distasteful to the 
colder and less imaginative Englishman or 
American. The expressions of an ardent lover 
to his sweetheart may not all be literally true, 
for w r armth of feeling often begets exaggeration 
in language. But who would cavil thereat, and 
ask the lover always to speak in cold, matter-of- 
fact terms ? . Must there be no warmth in the 
expression of our love of the saints of God? 

Speaking of these expressions of devotion, 
Ruskin says that they " are rather poetical effu- 
sions than serious prayers ; the utterances of 
imaginative enthusiasm rather than reasonable 
conviction. And as such, they are rather to be 
condemned as illusory and fictitious than as 
idolatrous ; nor even as such condemned alto- 
gether, for strong love and faith are often the 
roots of them, and the errors of affection are 
better than the accuracies of apathy" (''The 
Stones of Venice," vol. ii. p. 390, appendix 10). 
We read in the Scripture (Josue x. 14) of " the 
Lord obeying the voice of a man." Now, this 
does not mean a real obedience, but God's 
readiness to hear the prayer of Josue. 

To say that Mary commands God is heretical 
doctrine (decree of the Roman Inquisition, Feb. 
28, X875). If the expression is used, it merely 



522 



The Question Box, 



implies that out of His great love for His 
mother, Jesus Christ is ever ready to hear her 
prayer. Every country has its peculiar idioms, 
which a foreigner must master ; so the Church 
has her idioms, which non-Catholics should 
learn before they find fault. (Newman, "An- 
glican Difficulties," vol. ii. pp. 89-117; Ganss, 
" Mariolatry," Ave Maria Press.) 

Does not the Catholic devotion to Mary as a 
matter of fact detract from the worship due to 
Christ ? 

On the contrary, it is an historical fact that 
the Catholic Church, which has always cher- 
ished a great love for the Mother of Christ, has 
ever been the great defender of the divinity of 
Jesus Christ, her Son. Outside her fold, thou- 
sands of nominally Christian ministers and peo- 
ple deny the divinity of the Son of God, be- 
cause, among other reasons, their forefathers lost 
the true sense of the unique dignity of that 
Son's Blessed Mother. 

"If we look through Europe," writes Car- 
dinal Newman, "we shall find, on the whole, 
that just those nations and countries have lost 
their faith in the divinity of Christ who have 
given up devotion to His Mother, and that 
those, on the other hand, who had been fore- 
most in her honor, have retained their' ortho- 
doxy. Contrast, for instance, the Calvinists 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 523 



with the Greeks, or France with the North of 
Germany, or the Protestant and Catholic com- 
munions in Ireland" (" Difficulties of Angli- 
cans, " vol. iio p. 92). 

All prayer to Mary indeed is virtually and 
ultimately prayer to God. L,ove of her, by its 
very nature, carries us to the love of God, 
whose masterpiece she is. Strangers at times 
have entered our churches and been scandal- 
ized at what they deemed an excessive manifes- 
tation of devotion on the part of our people, 
who were praying devoutly before some statue 
of the Blessed Virgin. They forget, however, 
that on the altar is Jesus Christ really present, 
and that during Mass in the early morning 
those same devout souls have knelt in adoration 
to Him alone. Catholics ever make an infinite 
difference between their love for the Son and 
the Mother, realizing perfectly that all her 
graces and privileges are from Him. If some 
words or expressions of our devotional writings 
seem to contradict this, let the objector remem- 
ber that it is unreasonable to insist that a devo- 
tional tract be couched in the accuracy of dog- 
ma. Love never expresses itself in the exact 
language of a mathematical formula. 

Did not the adoration of the Virgin in the Middle 
Ages tend to encourage harmful superstition, by 
overshadowing entirely the mediatorship of Christ? 



524 



The Question Box, 



There has never been any adoration of the 
Virgin in the Catholic Church. In the fourth 
century the heresy of the Collyridians, who 
paid her divine honors, was expressly con- 
demned by the Fathers of the time; for in- 
stance, St. Epiphanius (Adv. Collyridians). 
The love and reverence for the Mother of God 
which characterized the ages of faith helped 
greatly to keep the doctrine of the Incarnation 
free from all taint of heresy, and also in the 
days of chivalry begot a spirit of respect for 
woman, which could not but be beneficial in its 
influence on the fierce manners of the period. 

This many Protestants and unbelievers, free 
from controversial bias, have been forced to ad- 
mit, "The world/ ' writes the rationalist 
L,ecky, " is governed by ideals, and seldom or 
never has there been one which has exercised 
a ziore salutary influence than the mediaeval 
conception of the Virgin' ' (" Rationalism in 
Europe, " ch. iii. p. 234). . . . "There 
is, I think, little doubt that the Catholic rever- 
ence for the Virgin has done much to elevate 
and purify the ideal woman, and to soften the 
manners of men" (" History of European 
Morals," vol. ii. p. 389). 

The Middle Ages had too perfect a knowl- 
edge of the unique mediatorship of Jesus Christ, 
who alone "gave himself a redemption for all " 
(I. Tim. ii. 6), ever to put a creature in the 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 525 



place of God. Instead of encouraging super- 
stition, the Catholic love for Mary has ever 
been "productive of true holiness of life and 
purity of character'' (Ruskin, " Fors Clavi- 
gera," letter 41), by holding up her example 
for imitation and showing what human nature 
is capable of by the grace of God. 

Is not the high place the Virgin holds in your 
Church due to the exaggerations of the mediaeval 
mind ? 

No, the true dignity of Mary w r as appreciated 
from the beginning by all Christians who knew 
her as the Mother of God. For the witness of 
the early Fathers, and the catacomb frescoes 
and paintings, consult: Newman's " Letter to 
Pusey"; Livius, 1 ' The Blessed Virgin in the 
Fathers"; Shahan, "The Blessed Virgin in 
the Catacombs." 

Did not Christ speak harshly to Mary, when 
He said (John ii. 4), " Woman, what have I to do 
with thee? " 

The milder Catholic version is also the more 
accurate one : " Woman, what is it to thee and 
to me?" How could men imagine for a mo- 
ment that the sweet Saviour of men could ever 
speak rudely to His own mother? Do we re- 
spect any son who treats the mother who bore 
him w r ith disrespect? The title ' ' woman" in 
the East is one of the greatest reverence, as we 



526 



The Question Box. 



learn from its frequent use by our IyOrd himself 
(Matt. xv. 28 ; I,uke xiii. 12 ; John iv. 21, viii. 
10, xix. 26, xx. 13, 15). 

Would He, for instance, speak harshly to 
His mother when commending her to the care 
of His beloved disciple, John: " Woman, be- 
hold thy son " ? (John xix. 26). So, many Prot- 
estant scholars, French, Alford, Edersheim, and 
others, admit to-day that the old controversial 
use of this passage, to prove Christ's harshness 
to His mother, arose merely from ignorance, 
Thus, Dr. Westcott, commenting on this text, 
says : "In the word woman there is not the 
least tinge of reproof or severity. The address 
is that of courteous respect, even tenderness.' ' 

The phrase " what is it to me and to thee" 
cannot convey any rebuke, for He immediately 
afterwards works the miracle she requests 
(Ganss, " Mariolatry " ; American Cath. Quar- 
terly, 1895, p. 399). , 

Did not Christ evidently make little of His 
mother when, at the cry of the woman in the 
crowd calling Mary blessed, He said : " Yea, 
rather, blessed are they that hear the word of 
God and keep it"? (Luke xi. 28). 

By no means. For "if in Christ's 'yea, 
rather' He be supposed to deprecate His 
mother's cultus, He must no less be supposed 
to deprecate His own '; for the wom&n in the 



The Blessed Virgin and th* Saints. 527 



crowd primarily extolled Him, and His mother 
only for His sake" (Ryder, "Catholic Contro- 
versy," p. 107). 

Does not Luke viii. 20, 21, clearly show that 
Christ showed no special honor to Mary ? (Matt, 
xii. 46-50). 

I quote the commentary of St. Ambrose: 
"He did not mean to reject the attentions of 
His mother; lor He Himself commands, Let 
whosoever dishonors father or mother, die the 
death ; but He acknowledges Himself obliged 
rather to attend to the mysteries of His Father 
than to indulge maternal affection. His mother 
is not disowned here, as some heretics insidiously 
pretend; even from the cross He acknowledges 
her" (John xix^ 26, 27). 

It shows a very imperfect grasp of the infinite 
perfection of the All- Perfect Son of God, to 
imagine for an instant that He could show the 
slightest disrespect to His own most blessed 
mother. What greater honor than to have been 
subject to her for thirty years in the seclusion 
of the home at Nazareth ? {American Cath. 
Quarterly, 1894, p. 712.) 

Why do you pray to the Virgin Mary, when 
the Bible says nothing about it ? 

Is not the intercession of Christ all-sufficient ? 
"We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the righteous " (I. John n. t)* Did not 



528 



The Question Box. 



the Saviour say: "No man cometh to the 
Father, but by Me? " (John xiv. 6) ; and again, 
"Come unto Me, all ye that labor "? (Matt, 
xi. 28). 

Why call her mediator, when the Bible says 
that Christ is the only Mediator ? (I. Tim. ii. 5)- 

The fact of intercessory prayer— the power 
and desire of the Saints to help us — is evidenced 
in both the Old Testament and the New 
(Gen. xviii.; Exod. xvii.; Job xlii.; Tob. xih 
12; Zach. i. 12; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 18; 
I. Thess. v. 25; James v. 16). 

Our Lord's intercession is unique ; as the 
Divine Incarnate Word He is, as the Apostle 
tells us (I. Tim. ii. 5), the one Mediator of jus- 
tice. The mediatorship of the Saints is of 
grace and prayer, helping us through the Medi- 
atorship of Jesus Christ. 

Among the saints, the Blessed Virgin be- 
cause of her supereminent dignity as Mother 
of God holds the first place ; and because of her 
intimate association with her Son in the re- 
demption of mankind, her power with Him is 
naturally the greatest. 

Catholics believe that no one can come to the 
Father save through Jesus Christ ; and the 
Council of Trent declares anathema upon all 
those who deny His unique Mediatorship. 
Catholics answer His appeal " Come unto Me " 
more than non-Catholics in the close union of 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 529 



Holy Communion, whereby "they abide in 
Him and He in them" (John vi. 57). 

The Blessed Virgin no more interferes with 
our access to Christ than the pipe which carries 
water from the reservoir prevents that water 
entering into our houses. She merely unites 
her most powerful prayers to our weak petitions, 
and the heart of her Son is moved to answer, 
even as a stern judge might hearken to the ap 
peal of a criminal's mother to soften the sen- 
tence against her bo}^ Her power is thus de- 
scribed by Cardinal Newman : 

"Her presence is above, not on earth; her 
office is external, not within us; . . her 
power is indirect. It is her prayers that avail, 
and they are effectual by the fiat of Him who is 
our all in all. Nor does she hear us by any in- 
nate power, or by any personal gift; but by His 
manifestation to her of the prayers which we 
make to her. When Moses was on the Mount, 
the Almighty told him of the idolatry of his 
people at the foot of it, in order that he might 
intercede for them ; and thus it is the Divine 
Presence which is the intermediating Power by 
which we reach her, and she reaches us M (Let- 
ter to Dr. Pusey, p. 89). 

Do you mean by the Immaculate Conception 
that the Virgin Mary had no father ? 

Does not the Bible teach: "As in Adam all 
clie" ? (L Cor. xv. 22). 



53o 



The Question Box. 



Did Catholics believe this doctrine prior to 
1854? 

What shadow of truth is there for this teach- 
ing? 

We do not believe that the Blessed Virgin 
was conceived by the Holy Ghost like her Di- 
vine Son (Luke i. 35), but, on the contrary, 
that she was conceived and born as the other 
children of Adam, of human parents, the saint- 
ly Joachim and Anne. 

Many rationalistic or "liberal" Protestants 
refuse to accept this dogma because they reject, 
with the unbeliever, the dogma of original sin. 
The orthodox Protestant, moreover, finds a dif- 
ficulty because of his erroneous idea of original 
sin. Says Cardinal Newman on this point: 

' 1 Our doctrine of original sin is not the same 
as the Protestant doctrine. Original sin with 
us cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary 
sense of the word sin ; it is a term denoting 
Adam's sin zs transferred to us, or the state to 
which Adam's sin reduces his children ; but by 
Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in 
much the same sense as actual sin. We, with 
the Fathers, think of it as something negative — 
Protestants as something positive. Protestants 
hold that it is a disease, a radical change of 
nature, an active poison internally corrupting 
the soul, infecting its primary elements, and 
disorganizing it ; and they fancy that we ascribe 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 531 



a different nature from ours to the Blessed Vir- 
gin, different from that of her parents, and from 
that of fallen Adam. 

" We hold nothing of the kind ; we consider 
that in Adam she died, as others; that she was 
included, together with the whole race, in 
Adam's sentence ; that she incurred his debt as 
we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was 
to redeem her and us upon the cross, to her the 
debt was remitted by anticipation ; on her the 
sentence was not carried out, except indeed as 
regards her natural death, for she died when 
her time came, as others. 

" All this we teach, but we deny that she had 
original sin ; for by original sin we mean, as I 
have already said, something negative, viz., 
this only, the deprivation of that supernatural, 
unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on 
their first formation — -deprivation and the conse- 
quences of deprivation. 

" Mary could not merit, any more than they, 
the restoration of that grace : but it was re- 
stored to her by God's free bounty from and at 
the very first moment of her existence, and 
thereby, in fact, she never came under the orig- 
inal curse, which consisted in the loss of it" 
("Difficulties of Anglicans," vol. ii. pp. 48-49). 

The Bull bieffabilis of Pius IX., December, 
1854, declares "that the doctrine which holds 
that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the very first 



532 



The Question Box. 



instance of her conception, by a singular grace 
and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in virtue 
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of 
mankind, was preserved free from all stain of 
original sin, has been revealed by God, and 
therefore should firmly and constantly be be- 
lieved by all the faithful." 

It is false to call this a new teaching, for the 
feast of the Immaculate Conception had been 
celebrated since the seventh century, and the 
Fathers of the first five centuries either imply 
her absolute sinlessness, or set it forth in ex- 
press terms. Thus St. Ephrem, in a passage of 
his Carmina Nisibe?ia, first discovered and pub- 
lished in 1866 : " Verily indeed Thou and Thy 
Mother, alone are you, in being in every 
respect altogether beautiful. For in Thee, 
Lord, is no spot, nor any stain in Thy Mother " 
(Livius, " Blessed Virgin in the Fathers," p 
232). This dogma was not defined until the 
year 1854, but definition does not create a dog- 
ma, but puts it for ever out of the domain of 
controversy, as giving a divine, infallible wit- 
ness to its truth. 

The Scriptures also, viewed in the clear light 
of patristic interpretation which ever regards 
Mary as the second Eve, declare the enmity 
between Mary and Satan absolute and lasting : 
"I will put enmities between thee and the 
woman, and thy seed and her seed ; she shall 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 533 

crush thy head" (Gen. iii. 15. Cf. loc. cit., 
PP- 35"59)- The words of the Angel Gabriel, 
"Hail, full of grace," are true in their fullest 
absolute sense only if we believe the Blessed 
Virgin to have been immaculately conceived. 

Why do Catholics claim that the Virgin Mary 
never committed sin, when the Bible says : " If 
we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us"? (I. Jchn i. 8). 

Because the Catholic Church, the infallible 
interpreter of Holy Scripture, declares that she 
was kept sinless her life long by a special favor 
of God (Council of Trent, Sess. vi. c. 23). This 
was the doctrine of the earty Church, as one 
may read in Father L,ivius' " The Blessed Vir- 
gin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries," 
ch. iv. pp. 229-245. 

To quote St. Augustine: "Now, with the 
exception of the Holy Virgin Mary, touching 
whom, out of respect to our Lord, when we are 
on the subject of sins, I have no mind to enter- 
tain the question," etc. (De nat. et grat, c.41). 
Cardinal Newman discusses some passages of 
the Fathers which are cited to the contrary in 
vol. ii. of " Difficulties of Anglicans," pp. 128^ 
152. 

Even some Protestant writers (Dietlein, ' ' Evan- 
gelisches Ave Maria," p. 3) have granted that, 
in view of her unique and supereminent dignity 



534 The Question Box. 

as Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin should be 
exempt from the slightest stain of sin. 

The text in question should no more prevent 
our believing in Mary's sinlessness, than the 
text " who only hath immortality " (I. Tim. vi. 
1 6) prevents our believing in the immortality of 
angels and of men. 

How can you claim that Mary was always a 
virgin, when the Scriptures speak so frequently 
of the "brethren of the Lord " ? (Matt. xii. 
46-50 ; Matt. xiii. 55-5 6 J Mark iii. 3i-35> 
vi. 3 ; Luke viii. 19-21 ; John ii. 12, vii. 3-10 ; 
Acts i. 14). 

The word brother is used in the Hebrew and 
in all languages in a general sense, and there- 
fore by no means necessarily implies children of 
the same parent. In the Old Testament it is 
applied to any relation, viz., nephew (Gen. xiv. 
16, xiii. 8, xii. 5), uncle (Gen. xxix. 15), hus- 
band (Cant. iv. 9), one of the same tribe (II. 
Kings xix. 12), of the same people (Ex. ii. 21), 
an ally (Amos i. 9), any friend (II. Kings L 
26), one of the same office (III. Kings ix. 

13)- 

To determine, therefore, the meaning of the 
word in the gospel texts, we must trust that 
most generally received tradition, handed down 
by St. Jerome and St. Augustine, which is, 
that the father of James was Alpheus (Cleopfcas) 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 535 



and his mother Mary, sister of the Blessed Vir- 
gin, and his brothers Jude, Joseph, and Simon; 
the ' ' brethren 1 9 of the Lord were therefore the 
first ^cousins of Jesus. (Compare Matt, xxvii. 
56, 61, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1 ; and 
John xix. 25.) 

The early Church held most firmly to the 
perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, as 
we learn from the condemnation of Helvidius, 
Jovinian, and other heretics of the fourth cen- 
tury by the synods of Rome (a, d. 381) and 
Capua (a. d. 392). The Council of L,ateran in 
A. d. 649 finally voiced the infallible witness of 
the Catholic Church, so that the Catholic is not 
left to the mere conjecture of private opinion. 
Indeed, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Beza 
among the Reformers, besides many Protestant 
writers to-day, deny as emphatically as any 
Catholic that the Blessed Virgin had any other 
children. (Cf. L,ange, Alexander, Grotius, 
Iyightfoot, Westcott, Bloomfield, Trench, Bright, 
Kuinoel, Koster, and Mill, quoted by Rev. 
Henry G. Ganss, " Mariolatry," p. 38; Fouard, 
"Life of Christ, " vol. i., appendix v.; P. Cor- 
luy, " Les Freres de N. S. Jesus Christ ' ' ; 
Jaugey, Diet. Apol., 1303-1308.) 

Our I^ord, dying on the cross, commended 
His mother to the care of His beloved disciple, 
St. John (John xix. 26, 27). He would not 
have done this if she had children of her own. 



536 The Question Box. 

Does not St. Matthew say : " And knew her 
not till she brought forth her first born son V ? 
(i. 25). And yet you claim that she had no 
other children! 

The word 1 'first born" by no means implies 
other children, for the law regarding the first 
born (Exod. xxxiv. 19, 20) was binding at 
once, whether there were other children or not. 
Again, we find Machir, the only son of Ma- 
nasses, called the first born (Josuexvii. 1). The 
words " not till" mean, not till then nor after; 
as, for example, Gen. viii. 6, 7 : " Noe, opening 
the window of the ark, sent forth a raven, 
which went forth and did not return, till the 
waters were dried up upon the earth" — i.e., 
never returned. 

What proof is there of Mary's ascension into 
heaven ? 

Catholics believe that this doctrine accords 
with the supereminent dignity of the Mother of 
God, whose body her Divine Son would not 
allow to see corruption ; and the fact of the 
feast of the Assumption having been celebrated 
since the sixth century, and the general belief 
of Catholics the world over to-day, render the 
denial of this teaching rash, although it has not 
yet been defined as a dogma of faith. (Wil- 
li elm Scannell, i( Manual of Theology," vol. ii. 
p. 218 et seq.) 



ike Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 537 

Why do uneducated people count beads? 
Does not the counting prevent real prayer ? 
Why ten prayers to the Virgin and only one 
to God? 

Why do you make the people repeat mechani- 
cal prayers on the Rosary without any warrant in 
the Bible? 

The Rosary is a simple method of prayer, 
consisting of the repetition of the Our Father 
and ten Hail Marys, five or fifteen times. It 
is not for the uneducated alone, being used 
with profit by all classes. 1 

It was originally a devotion of the faithful in 
the Middle Ages, who, unable to read the 
psalter, used to recite the Our Father and Hail 
Mary instead of each psalm, while the monks 
chanted the divine office in choir. The same 
custom is also recorded of St. Paul, the first her- 
mit, in the fourth century. It owes its present 
form to the Dominicans of the thirteenth cen- 
tury, and is to-day one of the chief devotions of 
Catholics. 

Its fifteen mysteries — the Annunciation, the 
Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the 
Finding in the Temple, the Agony, the Scourg- 
ing, the Crowning with Thorns, the Carrying 
of the Cross, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, 
the Ascension, the Descent of the Holy Ghost, 
the Assumption, and the Coronation of the 
Blessed Virgin — present a beautiful summary 



538 



The Question Box. 



of the gospels to the devout meditation of loving 
souls. 

It is natural that in a devotion especially 
hers, the major portion of the prayers should be 
addressed directly to the Blessed Virgin. 
Catholics know full well that in honoring the 
Mother of God they necessarily honor God, 
whose masterpiece she is. 

It is absurd to imagine that in reciting the 
Rosary we are counting prayers. Indeed, the 
very arrangement of the beads prevents our 
counting the number of Aves we say. Instead 
of preventing real prayer, the Rosary on the 
contrary helps greatly to concentrate our atten- 
tion, as even Protestants (Episcopalians) who 
have practised this devotion for a long time 
have acknowledged to me. Many a simple soul 
reciting the Rosary before the altar of God will 
put to the blush many a speech- prayer of the 
proud pharisee. As for Bible warrant, the Our 
Father and half of the Hail Mary are taken 
from the Holy Scriptures (Matt. vi. 9-13 ; Luke 
i. 28), while the repetition of these prayers so 
much objected to by non- Catholics rests on the 
word and example of the Saviour (Luke xi. 5- 
8, xviii. 3-10; Matt. xxvi. 44; cf, Ps. cxxxv. ; 
Matt. xx. 31). 

What constitutes a saint in your Church ? 
A saint is one whose extraordinary holiness 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 539 



of life and heroic virtues have attracted the 
notice of the Universal Church, and who after 
the most exact scrutiny into every detail of his 
life, writings, etc., has been placed on the ap- 
proved list of God's chosen followers. Except 
in the case of martyrs, their holiness must be 
proved conclusively by evident miracles before 
they are canonized. Of course there are many 
men and women who live and die unknown to 
the world, but whose lives are just as holy in 
God's sight. 

Why do you give honor to the saints, when it 
all belongs to God? 
Why do Catholics worship and adore the saints ? 

Catholics do not adore the saints ; they adore 
God alone. They venerate and love the saints 
as the special friends of Jesus Christ. Just as 
the state honors and respects its great men, and 
holds up to the imitation of the citizens their 
love of country, so the Church of God honors 
its heroes, and holds up to the faithful the ideal 
of their love of God. The word " worship 99 in 
the question is ambiguous, for in the English 
language it by no means is synonymous with 
adoration. It may be applied either to the su- 
preme divine worship of the one God (latria ), or 
the infinitely inferior respect and veneration of 
the saints of God dtdia ( or hyperdulia J. In the 
old Protestant marriage service, for instance, 



540 



The Question Box, 



the phrase " with my body I thee worship " by 
no means signified a divine adoration. Nor, 
again, does the term " your worship " or (( wor- 
shipful sir 99 applied to the judge on the bench 
necessarily give him the divine honor paid to 
the old Roman emperors. 

Strange, indeed, that despite the fact of the 
constant protest of Catholics for nearly four 
hundred years, and despite the acknowledg- 
ment of Protestant misrepresentation frequently 
made by Protestants everywhere, this old calum- 
ny should still be voiced by the ignorant. To 
learn the Catholic doctrine one has merely to 
read a Catholic catechism, which refutes this 
calumny, as of old it was refuted by St. Augus- 
tine. He says: "We venerate the martyrs 
with that veneration of love and fellowship 
which, even in this life, we honor the holy ser- 
vants of God, whose hearts we feel are ready to 
endure a similar suffering for the truth of the 
Gospel. But we honor them the more devoutly 
because they are safe, having conquered in the 
strife. . . . But with that worship w T hich 
in Greek is called latria (adoration), . . . 
we neither worship them, nor teach men to wor- 
ship any but the one God." (Cont; Faust. 
Man., lxx. n. xxi. For the Fathers, see 
"Faith of .Catholics," vol. iii. p. 318-409. 
Cf. Gen. xix. ; Num. xxii. 31; John v. 4; 
Apoc. xxii. 8.) 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 541 



Is every Catholic bound to pray continually to 
the saints? 

Why not go directly to Christ — the one Media- 
tor? (I. Tim. ii. 5). 

What proof is there that the saints know our 
needs ? 

How do you know that they really intercede 
for us? 

Does not your teaching make the saints practi- 
cally omnipotent ? 

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the 
invocation and intercession of the saints is 
clearly set forth by the Council of Trent (Sess. 
xxv.): "It is good and useful suppliantly to 
invoke them, and to have recourse to their 
prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits of 
God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, 
who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour." 

The fact of intercessory prayer, the venera- 
tion and the mediation of the angels and saints* 
is evident to any student of the Scriptures : 

Gen. xix. 1 : "And seeing them (the two 
angels), he rose up and went to meet them ; and 
worshipped prostrate to the ground. " 

Gen. xlviii. 16: " The angel that delivereth 
me from all evils, bless these boys." 

Zach. i. 12 : " O Lord of hosts, how long wilt 
thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, etc." 

Matt, xviii. .10: " Their angels always see 
the face of My Father who is in heaven.' ' 



542 



The Question Box. 



Apoc. v. 8 : 1 1 Golden vials full of odors, 
which are the prayers of saints." 

Apoc. viii. 3, 4 : "That he should offer of 
the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, 
. and the smoke of the incense of the 
prayers of the saints ascended up before God." 

The Scriptures, moreover, tell us that the 
prayers of a saint on this earth avail much 
(James v. 16), and give us many an example of 
the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as the prayer 
of Abraham (Gen. xviii.), of Moses (Exod. 
xvii.), of Job (xlii.), the brethren for St. Paul 
(Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 18, 19; I. Thess. v. 
25). According to the ordinary Protestant no- 
tion this intercessory prayer was useless. Why 
not go to God directly ? or in the new law, why 
not go to Christ directly ? 

Catholics ask, is it reasonable to suppose that 
nearness to the throne of God destroys this 
power of intercession ? Is it to be expected 
that in the joy of God's presence the saints will 
forget their brethren upon earth, who are still 
fighting the good fight ? Nay, rather their love 
for us must become more intense with the 
greater realization of the joys of God's king- 
dom, and their prayers be multiplied as the;*r 
power becomes greater with God. 

I have met many Protestants who imagine 
that after death the saints have no further 
knowledge of what happens upon earth. They 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 543 



fail to grasp the essential doctrine of tlie Com- 
munion of Saints, although they may recite the 
words of the Apostles' Creed. Scripture plain- 
ly declares that the angels in heaven know our 
actions upon earth (Tob. xii. 12 ; I. Cor. iv. 9 ; 
Matt, xviii. 10), and even our very thoughts 
(Luke xv. 10). Why, then, deny the same 
knowledge to the saints? — especially as our 
Lord declares that the children of the resurrec- 
tion shall be as " the angels of God in heaven " 
(Matt. xxii. 30; I^uke xx. 36). 

How do they know? continues the objector. 
Scripture tells us the fact, not the mode of their 
knowledge. The common Catholic teaching is 
that they know all things conducive to their 
happiness in the face-to-face vision of God (I. 
John iii. 2; I. Cor. xiii. 12). 

The intercession of Jesus Christ is unique 
and totally distinct from the mediatorship of the 
saints, His followers. He is the one Mediator 
of justice in virtue of His redemption, accord- 
ing to the Apostle : " There is one Mediator of 
God and men — the man Christ Jesus, who gave 
Himself a redemption for all " (I. Tim. ii. 5, 6). 
The mediation of the just upon earth and the 
saints in heaven is not of justice but of grace, 
and efficacious only in union with His me- 
diation. 

There is no possibility of disunion between 
Christ, the Head of the mystical body, and the 



544 



The Question -Box. 



saints as members thereof. Their mediation, 
therefore, being in a true sense His own, by no 
means derogates from His honor or glory, but 
on the contrary redounds thereunto. 

The early Church understood this doctrine 
well, as we can read on every page of the early 
Fathers. The veneration of the saints and mar- 
tyrs was universal, countless miracles of their 
intercession are recorded, and the love of the 
early Christians shown by the honor paid to 
their tombs, relics, images, and pictures. (For 
many testimonies see ' ' Faith of Catholics/ ! 
vol. iii. pp. 318-409; Rev. Thomas Livius, 
" The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers/ ' chs. vii. 
viii., pp. 278 et seq.) St. Ignatius, in the sec- 
ond century, writes to the Trallians : "My 
spirit be your expiation, not now only but 
when I shall have attained to God" (13). St. 
Cyprian, in the third century, writing to Pope 
Cornelius, says: "If one of us shall, by the 
speediness of the divine dispensation, depart 
hence the first, let our love continue in the 
presence of the Lord ; let not prayer for our 
brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the 
mercy of the Father' ' (Ep. ad Cornel. 57, Pat. 
L,at., torn. iii. p. 836). 

The principle of intercession presents no dif- 
ficulty in things human ; w T h}^, then, in things 
divine ? If I desire a favor of President Roose- 
velt, I may ask him directly, or do so indirectly 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 545 



through some of his personal friends. Will he 
take it as an insult if I approach him indirect- 
ly ? The request must come ultimately to him. 
So in the supernatural order. If I desire a 
favor of God, I may ask Him directly if I 
choose, or indirectly through His friends, the 
saints of God, as we are taught by the Scrip- 
tures and all Christian antiquity. The request 
must ultimately come to God, who alone can 
grant it. How absurd to think Him insulted 
if His loved ones add their prayers to ours. 

The saints' intercessory power by no means 
implies omnipotence, for they have no power of 
themselves to grant us what we ask, but can 
merely plead to God on our behalf. 

Has not the age of miracles passed for ever ? 
Did it not cease with the death of the Apostles ? 

No, the age of miracles will last until the end 
of time. Christ foretold (Mark xvi. 17, 18) the 
miraculous power of His saints: " And these 
signs shall follow them that believe. In My 
Name, they shall cast out devils ; they shall 
speak with new tongues ; they shall take up 
serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly 
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay 
their hands upon the sick, and they shall re- 
cover " And John xiv. 12: "He that believ- 
eth in Me, the works that I do he also shall 
do; and greater than these shall he do." 



546 



The Question Box. 



We grant that they are not so numerous to- 
day as in the first days of the Church, when 
they were specially meant to aid the spread of 
Christianity (St. Aug., De Civitate Dei, c. vii.), 
but no unprejudiced man can read the testi- 
mony for miracles in the lives of saints canon- 
ized by the Holy See, or performed, for instance, 
at Lourdes in France, without seeing at once 
that God's arm is not shortened, but that He 
still works His wonders as in Apostolic times. 
(" Medical Testimony to the Miracles of 
L,ourdes," vol. xvi., Catholic Truth Society 
Publications; Henri L,aserre, "Miracles at 
IyOurdes"; American Cath. Qiiai'terly^ 1876, 
P. 337; 1898, p. 382.) 

Do Catholics have to believe all the miracles 
recorded in the lives of the saints? 

By no means. They are historical facts, 
which depend on human and fallible testimony, 
which may be false, and therefore is to be 
weighed carefully as any other testimony. 
Many things related in the Did lives of the 
saints are undoubtedly legends. Thus, L,in- 
gard, the Catholic historian, after speaking of 
many undoubted miracles in the Anglo-Saxon 
Church, admits ' 'there are also many which 
must shrink from the frown of criticism ; some 
which may have been the effect of accident or 
imagination ; some that are more calculated to 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints 547 

excite the smile than the wonder of the readers ; 
and some which . . . depend on the dis- 
tant testimony of writers not remarkable for 
sagacity or discrimination " (' i Antiquities of 
the Anglo-Saxon Church," ch. xii. n. 6). 
The Catholic Church, however, is most careful 
in her acceptance of miracles, as w r e can see by 
the rules laid down by Benedict XIV. in his 
treatise on "The Canonization of Saints." 
Evidence that critics have considered con- 
vincing has, as a matter of fact, been rejected 
by the Congregation of Rites at Rome. 

Catholics are not more credulous than other 
people, but they protest against that modern 
irrational prejudice which, denying the possi- 
bility of miracles, refuses to consider testi- 
mony for them, no matter how strong or over- 
whelming. 

Do not Catholics adore images and pray to 
them ? 

No, Catholics do not. The Council of Trent 
(Sess. xxv.) declares "that the images of 
Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the 
other saints, are to be had and kept especially 
in churches, and that due honor and veneration 
are to be given them ; not that any divinity or 
virtue is believed to be in them, on account of 
which they are to be worshipped, or that any- 
thing is to be asked of them, or that trust is to 



548 



The Question Box. 



be reposed in images, as was done of old by 
the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols ; 
but because the honor which is shown them is 
referred to the prototypes which these images 
represent; in such wise that by the images 
which we kiss, and before which we uncover 
the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore 
Christ, and we venerate the saints whose simili- 
tude they bear." 

Does not God absolutely forbid us to make any 
graven images or bow down to them ? (Ex. xx. 
5). Yet you Catholics bow to statues, the cruci- 
fix, etc. 

God prohibits here and elsewhere in Scrip- 
ture the making of idols (pesel) and worship- 
ping them. " Thou shalt not make to thyself a 
graven thing. .. . . Thou shalt not adore 
them nor serve them " (Ex. xx. 4, 5) . This is 
evident from the context, for God gives the rea- 
son of the prohibition : " I am the Lord thy God, 
mighty, jealous, " etc. ; that is to say, One who 
wants the undivided love of His people, and is 
jealous of strange gods or idols representing 
them. If the text meant an absolute and per- 
petual prohibition, we would have God prohibit- 
ing here what He commands elsewhere. For God 
Himself expressly ordered images to be made 
and used for religious purposes, viz. : the golden 
cherubim (Ex. xxv. 18), the brazen serpent 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 549 



(Num. xxi. 8; John iii. 14), and ''divers fig- 
ures and carvings " in the Temple of Solomon 
(III. Kings vi. 29-35). The Ark of Covenant, 
for example, received the same veneration that 
Catholics pay to images : " And Josue- . . . 
fell flat on the ground before the ark of the 
Lord until the evening " (Josue vii. 6 ; II. Kings 
vi.) Logically, if the commandment refer not 
to the idolatrous worship of images, but abso- 
lutely "to the making of any graven thing' ' 
whatsoever, Protestants ought to destroy all the 
statues of our great men and burn all the por- 
traits of their relatives and friends. The Israel- 
ite prostrating himself before the king, the Eng- 
lishman saluting the throne, the American sol- 
dier saluting the flag — all should fall under the 
ban of this peculiar command of God. 

We can readily understand that the Jewish 
discipline on this matter was most strict, be- 
cause of their proneness to imitate the idolatry 
of the pagans amongst whom they lived. The 
same difficulty met the early Christians whose 
great struggle was directed against the idol- 
worship of the pagans. And yet the catacombs 
reveal to us clearly by the many paintings, 
gilded glasses, etc., that have come down to us 
— representing various scenes in the life of 
Christ, His Mother, the Apostles and other 
saints of the Old Law and the New— that the 
mind of the early Christians was identical with 



550 The Question Bow 

that of Catholics to-day. For the witness of 
Christian antiquity read "Faith of Catholics," 
vol. in. pp. 303-318. 

The wanton destruction of crucifixes, statues, 
and paintings that marked the beginning of the 
Reformation in Germany, Scotland, and Eng- 
land, deplored by many non- Catholics the world 
over, was merely a revival of the old Icono- 
clastic heresy condemned in 787 by the Second 
Council of Nice. Strange, indeed, that the 
statues and pictures of kings, queens, and 
Reformation "saints" soon filled the vacant 
niches and walls of the old churches ! Error is 
never consistent. 

Did not Catholics suppress the second com- 
mandment, in order to get over its prohibition 
against graven images? 

Why are the ten commandments divided differ- 
ently by Protestants and Catholics ? 

Catholics have never suppressed the second 
commandment. They have abridged at times 
the first commandment in catechisms intended 
for children, but in that they have the example 
of the Holy Spirit (IV. Kings xvii. 35), who 
does exactly the same thing. 

The Scriptures tell us that there were ten 
commandments, but do not indicate how they 
were divided.- The Protestant division follows 
rather Ex. xxv 1*17, whik the Catholic follows 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 5 5 1 

Deut. v. 6-21. The Catholic division is the 
older and the more logical. We hold that 
desire for another man's wife and desire for an- 
other man's property are two essentially distinct 
crimes, and therefore merit two separate com- 
mandments, the ninth and tenth. On the other 
hand, the first commandment insists on the vir- 
tue of religion and forbids all sins against that 
virtue, the chief of which is idolatry. Logic- 
ally, therefore, the Protestant second command- 
ment has no reason of being, and was born of 
the exigency of controversy to justify the early 
Reformers. ^ 

The Catholic division (St. Augustine, Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, St. Jerome) is to be found 
ill the works of John Huss and Martin L,uther. 
(Opera Huss, Noriuibergise, 1558, p. 30; Cate- 
chism of Dr. Martin Luther for Parsons, etc. ; 
Appendix to Luther's German Bible; Alcuin, 
De Decern Verbis Legis, Opera, vol. i. p. 340; 
the Council of Lambeth, a. d. 1281 ; the Synod 
of Exeter, A. d. 1287, and books of devotion 
written for the English people, as " The Festi- 
val," Rouen, 1499, the "Pilgrimage of Per- 
feceyon, A. d. 1531, "Dives et Pauper," 
1496, the catechisms of Erasmus and of Cran- 
tner, 1548, etc., all follow the Catholic division.) 

It is true indeed that some Jewish and Chris- 
tian writers of the first centuries, viz., Philo, 
Josephus, Origen ? Ambrose, Procopms, and, 



^52 The Question Box, 

Rupertus, followed the Protestant division, but 
they did not forbid the veneration of images 
like the latter, but regarded the first command- 
ment as forbidding the interior act of idolatry, 
and the second the external act. It is not until 
1552 that we find the decalogue divided in the 
Book of Common Prayer as Protestants divide 
it to-day. ("The Use of Holy Images," Rev. 
L,. Meurin, S.J., 1866, Bombay.) 

What good are statues and pictures ? Can we 
not pray to God without them? 

Undoubtedly a man could pray to God alone 
on a barren island, or wrecked on a spar of a 
sunken ship, or in the dark cell of a prison, 
without the help of painting or of statue. But 
we must take man as he generally is. We 
could respect the heroes of our country without 
raising statues to them in the national capital ; 
we could commune in spirit with our friends 
without the need of the photograph on our 
walls ; a mother could sigh over the babe she 
lost without taking in her hands the little 
trinkets of the dead dear one ; but it is not 
the way of human nature. 

The Catholic Church claims to answer every 
need of the human heart. She uses every pos- 
sible means to unite her children to God. It is 
an undoubted fact that statues and pictures of 
the gamts. ar© great helps to devotion, They 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 553 



are the books of the illiterate, who thus learn 
easily the story of the gospels; they adorn our 
churches, which are the home of Jqsus Christ, 
with masterpieces of art still the envy of those 
who believe not ; they bring vividly before all 
the lives of Christ and his saints, and incite 
us to imitate them. 

The newspapers and magazines of our day 
know well the power of illustration to help the 
imagination ; the theatre speaks to-day of the 
thousands it spends on scenic display ; in pro- 
cessions on holidays floats are carried through- 
out our cities with statues representing the vari- 
ous handicrafts. Can you therefore object to 
our rational, traditional, and Scriptural custom ? 

Is it not superstition to venerate relics, viz. : 
the bones of a dead man or woman? 

What warrant is there for such practice in the 
Scriptures ? 

The reverence paid by Catholics to the relics 
of the saints is by no means superstitious. On 
the contrary, it is an act of religion and the 
teaching of the Christian Church from the be- 
ginning * * that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, 
and of others now living w T ith Christ, . . . 
are to be venerated by the faithful, through 
which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by 
God on men" (Council of Trent, Sess. xxv.) 
St. Jerome in the fourth century wrote a book 



554 



The Question Box, 



against the heretic Vigilantius, who called the 
Christians of the time who venerated the relics 
of the martyrs " cinder- worshippers and idola- 
ters " ( cinerarii et idolatrcz) . In writing on the 
matter to the priest Riparius he says : (< We 
worship not, we adore not, I do not say relics 
only, but not even the sun and moon, not 
angels, not archangels, not the cherubim, not 
the seraphim, . . . lest we serve the crea- 
ture, rather than the Creator. But we honor 
the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore 
Him whose martyrs they are. We honor the 
servants, that the honor given to the servants 
may redound to the Lord," etc. (Ep. c. ix. ad 
Riparium). For other testimonies of the ven- 
eration of relics in the early Church from the 
second to the fifth century see " Faith of Catho- 
lics, " vol. iii. pp. 235-303. 

Scripture speaks plainly of astonishing mira- 
cles wrought by means of material objects be- 
longing to the saints, viz. : the mantle of Elias 
divided the waters of the Jordan (IV. Kings ii. 
8-14), the rod of Moses performed w r onders at 
the court of Pharao (Ex. vii. 10 et scq.) } the 
bones of the prophet Eliseus raised a dead man 
to life (IV. Kings xiii. 21), the hem of our 
Lord's garment cured the woman sick twelve 
years with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20, 21, 
xiv. 36), the handkerchiefs and aprons which 
had touched the body of St. Paul cured diseases 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 555 



and drove out wicked spirits (Acts xix. 12), trie 
shadow of St. Peter healed multitudes that were 
"sick, and troubled with unclean spirits' ' 
(Acts v. 15, 16). 

The same spirit has actuated Christians from 
the beginning zealously to gather up and venerate 
the relics of the saints of God, that prompts a 
mother to save carefully and love dearly a lock 
of her dead baby's hair, or that prompts us 
Americans to keep with great reverence the 
chair and trie pen of the signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence at Philadelphia, the sword 
of Washington at Mount Vernon, the home of 
Jefferson Davis at Richmond with its several 
rooms devoted to the relics dear to the several 
Southern States. The Church of God claims 
the same privilege to show her love and rev- 
erence for her heroes. 

Remember that Catholics do not believe that 
relics have any secret power strictly of them- 
selves, but they know that God has often 
granted special favors and blessings through 
their instrumentality. There is no divinity in 
them, but God uses them in the same way that 
he uses men to do his will. 

Are there not many relics going about that are 
not genuine? 

What proof have you in any particular in- 
stance that you are not being deceived ? 



The Question Box. 



There are undoubtedly, through ignorance 
and fraud, some spurious relics (Letter of Jan- 
uary, 1 88 1, by Cardinal- Vicar of Rome to all 
Bishops warning against spurious relics), and 
indeed we do not claim absolute certainty in 
this matter. No Catholic, indeed, is bound to 
believe any relic genuine unless he has satisfac- 
tory evidence to the fact. The Council of 
Trent ordered bishops to take special pains in 
this regard, and the Congregation of Indul- 
gences and Relics at Rome has done its best to 
prevent false relics being offered to the venera- 
tion of the faithful, requiring always a special 
document of authentication. Suppose, how- 
ever, the relic to be false, the saint would still 
be honored by us ; for we pray not to a bit of 
bone, but to the saint to whom it is supposed to 
belong. 

What historical proof is there that the Cross on 
which the Saviour died was really discovered ? 

Are there not enough relics of the true Cross in 
existence to make hundreds of the original? 

This is an utterly false statement of fact. M. 
Rohault de Fleury in 1870 refuted this calumny, 
and his work has been summarized by Rev. 
James Bellord in one of the Catholic Truth 
Society pamphlets. Estimating the size of the 
cross at 15 feet for the upright, 7! feet for the 
cross-beam, 7J inches for the breadth and 6 



The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 557 



inches for the thickness, it would follow that it 
contained 6% cubic feet of timber, or about 
1 1,448 cubic inches. All the relics in the world 
fall far below this amount. In all his long and 
arduous researches M. de Fleury, so far from 
finding enough relics of this kind to make three 
hundred "true erossei, con d only discover, 
including 370 cubic inches of notable relics 
that no longer exist, enough of the sacred wood 
to make up a bulk of about 1 of a cubic foot c 
(Cf. The Month, March, 1882, vol. xliv. p. 358.) 

As to the finding of the Cross, Cardinal New- 
man, while yet a Protestant, discussed this fact 
in his essay on the miracles of Early Ecclesias- 
tical History, ch. v. sect- v. pp. 286-326. 

What is the good of pilgrimages to certain 
places when God is everywhere ? ; 

Undoubtedly God is everywhere, but some 
places are especially chosen by Him to show 
forth His power, goodness, and mercy, and are 
therefore naturally dear to those who love Him. 
When visited in the right spirit and not out of 
curiosity Following of Christ, M Book IV. 
ch. L), they cannot fail to arouse sentiments of 
true devotion. How many thousands of Chris- 
tians have felt their hearts burn with love for 
the Saviour, how many non-Christians have 
learned for the first time the mystery of the 
Cross, as they vis'ted the d: Cerent oifeits of the 



558 



The Question Box. 



Holy Land, once blessed by the presence of 
Jesus Christ. Every country, too, has had its 
shrines of the saints of God, viz.: Rome, Tours, 
Lourdes, St. Albans, Compostella, etc., where 
good souls have prayed with greater fervor" and 
great sinners have done penance for their sins. 
As early as the eighth century pilgrimages, 
especially to the Holy Land and to the tomb of 
the Apostles in Rome, were made a substitute 
for the severe canonical penances (Lepicier, 
Indulgences). In the Old Testament also we 
read of Elcana and Anna going every year to 
pray at Silo (I. Kings i. i, 3), and the Jews 
used to go every year to the Temple at Jerusa- 
lem, a custom which our Lord Himself observed 
(Luke ii. 41). It is the teaching of the Scrip- 
tures that prayer has special efficacy in certain 
places (III. Kings viii. 29). In fine, it answers 
a need in human nature. All people have a 
special love and veneration for the relics, 
houses, and tombs of their great men. No 
one objects to the thousands who yearly visit 
the tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon, or 
of Napoleon at Paris; no one finds fault with 
those who make pilgrimages to the houses of 
Longfellow and Lowell in Cambridge, or of 
Hawthorne in Salem. Why, then, be so illogi- 
cal as to deny Catholics the right to visit the 
shrines and tombs of Christ and the heroes of 
Chrk'J'* Glturete iha Saints of GoJ ? 



The Hereafter. 559 



THE HEREAFTER. 
How do you know that a man is judged imme- 
diately after his death ? If so, of what use then 
is the judgment on the last day ? 

The fact of the particular judgment at the 
hour of death, although not defined by the 
Catholic Church, is a logical inference from the 
teaching of Scripture and tradition from the 
beginning, that the eternal lot of every soul is 
determined at death. "And it came to pass 
that the beggar died, and was carried by the 
angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich 
man also died; and he was buried in hell" 
(Luke xvi. 22). Such also is the teaching of 
the Council of Florence (a. d. 1438-45). It is 
probable too that the Epistle to the Hebrews 
mentions this doctrine: "It is appointed unto 
men once to die, and after this the judgment " 
(Heb. ix. 27). 

The dogma of the General Judgment at the end 
of the world is clearly set forth by the Saviour in 
Matt. xxv. 31-46 {cf. II. Cor. v. 10; Apoc. xx. 
12), and is embodied in the Apostles', the Ni- 
cene, and the Athanasiau Creeds. Its purpose 
is to manifest to the* world the wisdom of the 
divine plan, to vindicate the offended majesty 
of Christ, and to show forth the glory of the 
just and the shame of the reprobate. 

What, and where is Li^bo ? 



^560 The Questioji Box, 
k — 



4 i Limbo is the place where the souls of the 
just, who died before the death of Jesus Christ, 
were detained. It was distinct from Purgatory, 
inasmuch as the souls there did not suffer, al- 
though they did not enjoy the Beatific Vision. 
It is mentioned several times in the New Testa- 
ment : for instance, " Abraham's bosom M (Luke 
xvi. 22), Paradise' ' (Luke xxiii. 43), and 
"the prison" (I. Pet. iii. 19). The Apostles 1 
Creed calls it hell (a term sometimes used to 
mean any place not Heaven) ; " He descended 
into hell," for Christ after His death on the 
cross went to announce to the souls of Limbo 
the glad tidings of their redemption. "In 
which also coming, He preached to those spirits 
that were in prison" (I. Pet. iii. 19). 



RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 

How is it possible that we shall all rise again 
with the same bodies that we had upon earth ?C 

The Catholic Church teaches (IV. Lateran 
Council) that all men " will rise again with 
their own bodies which* they now bear about 
with them" (Apostles*, Nicene, and Athana- 
sian Creeds).*- 

This doctrine of the resurrection of the body, 
and its reuniting with the soul at thes day of 
Judgment, cannot be pf©ved from reason, bu% 



Resurrection of the Body. 561 



is the clear teaching of the Scriptures. The 
doctrine of the Jews is plain from Dan. xii. 2 ; 
II. Mach. vii. 9; John xi. 24. Our Lord ex- 
pressly taught it against the Sadducees of His 
time, who denied it (Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xx. 
37- Cf- John v. 28, vi. 39, xi. 25 ; Luke xiv. 
14), and St. Paul mentions it frequently, es- 
pecially I. Cor. xv. 12. (Cf. Acts xvii. 18, 31, 
32, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 15, xxvi. 8 ; Rom. viii. 11 ; 
I. Cor. vi. 14; II. Cor. iv. 14; Phil. iii. 21; 
I. Thess. iv. 12-16; II. Tim. ii. 11; Heb. 
vi. 2). 

It is undoubtedly the teaching of Revelation 
that we shall all rise again with the same bodies 
(I. Cor. xv. 53; Rom. viii. 11) ; but how far 
this identity is to be kept, we do not know. 
We can only give the answer of St. Paul to the 
objectors of his day, when he asked them to ex- 
plain how it was that God made the wheat 
spring up from the dying of the seed. " Sense- 
less man, that which thou sowest is not quick- 
ened, except it die first. . . . But God 
giveth it a body as He will ; and to every seed 
its proper body" (I. Cor. xv. 36, 38). 

What does your Church teach regarding the 
millennium? (Rev, xx. 4, 5). 

The Church has defined nothing whatsoever 
on this subject. The reign of Christ for one 
thousand years (Apoc. xx. 1-10), with the two 



562 



The Question Box. 



resurrections of the just and the wicked, held 
in the early Church by some few writers, is 
contrary to the Scriptures, which speak only oi 
the two-fold coming of Christ ; the first as the 
Babe of Bethlehem (L,uke i.), and the second 
as the Judge of the living and the dead (Matt, 
xxiv. 27, xxv.) The Apocalypse is one of the 
most obscure portions of Holy Writ, and no 
one pretends to be able to interpret it with 
any certainty. 

Where in the Bible is the word " Purgatory " 
found ? 

The word Purgatoiy is not found in the 
Bible ; but what does that prove ? Many other 
terms, v.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation — sacred 
to every orthodox Protestant as well as Catho- 
lic — are likewise not in Holy Writ. The doc- 
trine of Purgatory is in the Bible. 

What is the teaching of your Church with re- 
gard to Purgatory, and on what authority does 
it rest ? 

The Catholic Church teaches "that there is 
a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained 
are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but 
chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar" 
(Trent, Sess. xxv.) 

The strongest argument for the existence of 



Purgatory. 



563 



Purgatory and the practice of praying for the 
dead is the universal and constant witness of 
divine tradition as voiced in the writings of the 
Fathers (see " Faith ot Catholics," vol. iii. pp. 
139-205), in the ancient Liturgies of both East 
and West, in the inscriptions in the catacombs 
of Rome (Northcote, " The Roman Catacombs," 
ch. vii.), and in the Councils of Florence (a. d. 
1438-45) and Trent (1545-63). Thus, Tertul- 
lian writes (about 204 a. d.) : " We make, on 
one day every year, oblations for the dead, as 
for their birthdays" (De Corona, n. 3). 

The evidence of Scripture (II. Mach. xii. 
43-46) shows the belief of the Jews in a middle 
state where the dead can profit by the good 
works (sacrifices) and prayers of the living : 
" And making a gathering, (Judas Machabeus) 
sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jeru- 
salem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of 
the dead. ... It is therefore a holy and 
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that 
they may be loosed from sins." The historical 
value of this book of Scripture cannot be denied 
by those who reject it as canonical, for we have 
even to this day the witness of the orthodox 
Jewish prayer-book to the fact of such prayers. 
Its inspiration rests on the same authority as 
Genesis and the Apocalypse, — the divine wit- 
ness of the infallible Church of God. If the 
doctrine of Purgatory were an innovation of the 



564 



The Question Box. 



Pharisees, surely it would have fallen under the 
condemnation of the Saviour, for there can be 
no doubt that in His day it was, as it is now, a 
Jewish belief. 

There are, moreover, proofs of the doctrine 
in the New Testament, as we learn from the 
interpretation of the Fathers of the early 
Church, viz., Matt. xii. 32, in which Christ 
speaks of slight sins being forgiven in the world 
to come; I. Cor. iii. 13-15, in which St. Paul 
mentions "the fire which shall try every man's 
work, and through which he himself shall be 
saved " ; I. Pet. iii. 18-20, in which St. Peter 
tells how our Saviour preached the fact of His 
redemption to " those spirits that were in pri- 
son " (cf. Matt. v. 26). 

It is indeed strange how, in the face of this 
overwhelming testimony, the early Reformers 
dared deny the doctrine. They believed that 
nothing defiled could enter heaven, and that 
' 1 the eyes of God were too pure to look upon 
iniquity " (Apoc. xxi. 27; Habacuc i. 3). 
What, then, was to become of the millions of 
souls who were not perfectly pure from sin at 
the hour of death? The denial of Purgatory 
implies either the cruel doctrine that the greater 
number of even devout Christians are lost, 
which in the reaction to-day outside the Catho- 
lic Church accounts in some degree for the 
common denial of eternal punishment; or the 



P?irgatory. 



unwarranted and unproved assumption that 
God by " some sudden, magical change M puri- 
fies the soul at the instant of death. (Mohler, 
" Symbolism," Book I. ch. iii. sec. xxiii.; 
Oxenham, " Eschatology, ,, ch. i. pp. 26-40.) 

How logically is doctrine interwoven with 
doctrine in the clear, consistent gospel of Jesus 
Christ, so that a denial of one central dogma 
means the overthrow of all. Luther's new the- 
ory of justification by faith alone, led him to 
deny the fact of temporal punishment, the dis- 
tinction between mortal and venial sin, the effi- 
cacy of indulgences, the existence of Purga- 
tory, and the usefulness of prayers for the dead. 

The doctrine of Purgatory follows clearly 
from the doctrine that some die with the burden 
of venial sins on their souls, or with the tem- 
poral punishment due to forgiven sin still un- 
paid. How few souls are fit to be ushered into 
the awful presence of God ! Are there not 
many slight sins in our life-time that we never 
even ask .pardon for ? And, again, do you be- 
lieve that a perfectly just God would grant 
heaven immediately to the death-bed penitent 
who had not the time to satisfy for all his sins, 
or to pay to the last farthing the debt of tem- 
poral punishment? 

Indeed, Protestants have admitted to me that 
they have felt instinctively that some of their own 
relatives were neither wicked enough to deserve 



566 



The Question Box. 



hell nor good enough to deserve heaven at the 
hour of death, and that despite their doctrinal 
denial, they had prayed for them. One Lu- 
theran woman lately, in Baltimore, told me that 
for years she had thus gone to the grave of one 
she loved, and prayed there as earnestly as any 
Catholic. < 

Even the pagan philosopher Plato distin- 
guished between curable and incu?able offences 
to be punished hereafter, — the one for a time, 
the other for ever. He writes in his Gorgias, 
" But those that are benefited, at the same time 
that they suffer punishment both from gods 
and men, are such as have been guilty of cura- 
ble offences ; their benefit, however, both here 
and in Hades, accrues to them through means 
of pain and torments; for it is not possible to 
be freed from injustice in any other way" 
(Cary's translation, vol. i. p. 230, n. 171). 

Many non-Catholics to-day are, therefore, 
coming to realize how irrational and unchris- 
tian was the Reformation rejection of this most 
consoling doctrine. Mallock writes: "It is 
becoming fast recognized on all sides that it 
(Purgatory) is the only doctrine that can bring 
a belief in future rewards and punishments into 
anything like accordance with our notions of 
what is just and reasonable. So far from its 
being a superfluous superstition, it is seen to be 
just what is demanded at once by reason and 



Purgatory. 



567 



morality ; and a belief in it to be not an intel- 
lectual assent only, but a partial harmonizing 
of the whole moral ideal " ("Is Life Worth 
Living ?" ch. xi. p. 290). 

Did not Christ say to the good thief : " Verily, 
I say unto thee, to-day shalt thcu be with me in 
paradise " ? (Luke xxiii. 43). 

Catholics, believing that Christ's soul imme- 
diately after His death went down to limbo to 
preach deliverance to the souls of the just there 
detained (I. Pet. iii. 19), declare that paradise in 
the above text does not refer to heaven at all, 
but to limbo. 

But at any rate, the fact that Christ, in view 
of the dying thief's suffering and sorrow, re- 
mitted unto him all the punishment due to his 
sins, does not prove that Purgatory does not ex- 
ist. For Catholics believe that God may at any 
time remit the guilt of sin and all the punish- 
ment due thereto, just as he always does in the 
sacrament of baptism ; but this is not His ordi- 
nary law, as taught by His divinely infallible 
Church. 

How does the Church or the priest know when 
a person has been delivered from Purgatory? 

The Catholic Church does not pretend to 
know anything about the duration of the suffer- 
ings of Purgatory, save that God, who is infin- 



568 The Question Box, 

ite justice, will render to every one the punish- 
ment he deserves. "Thou shalt not go out 
from thence till thou repay the last farthing* ' 
(Matt. v. 26). 

Is it just that God should pardon men, and 
punish them afterwards in Purgatory ? Does not 
Scripture say : " Blessed are the dead which die 
in the Lord"? (Rev. xiv. 13). 

This question has been answered above, 
where we gave several instances in Scripture of 
God pardoning the guilt of sin yet inflicting 
temporal punishment for it afterwards. We 
hold that the dead in Purgatory are blessed, 
for they are certain ultimately to see the face 
of God. 



HEAVEN. 
Is heaven a place, or a state of the soul? 
What do we really know about heaven ? 

Heaven is both a place of everlasting happi- 
ness, and a state of the soul perfectly happy in 
the presence of God. (Matt. iii. 16; Actsvii. 
55 ; Wisdom v. 16; Matt. xxv. 46; Matt, xviii. 
10; I. Cor. xiii. 12; I. John iii. 2). 

In it there will be none of the evils of this 
world, v. g., hunger, thirst, labor, sorrow, sin, 
or death (Ps. v. 6, liv. 7; Isa. xxv. 8; Job iii. 
17; John xvi. 20; Apoc. vii. 16, xxi. 4, 27, 
xxii. 5). 



Heaven. 569 

Its joys are beyond the power of the intellect 
to conceive: " Eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of 
man, what things God hath prepared for them 
that love Him" (I. Cor. ii. 9. Cf. Ps. xxxv. 
9 ; Isa. lxiv. 4). 

No one can enter heaven unless he be free 
from sin and the penalty due thereunto,. 
"Nothing defiled can enter heaven" (Apoc. 
xxi. 27) ; and each soul there is rewarded ac- 
cording to his merits (Luke xix. 16 ; John xiv. 
2 ; I. Cor. xv. 41 ; II. Cor. ix. 6). 

Will we know our own relatives and friends in 
heaven ? 

Undoubtedly, for the love of the brethren will 
be intensified and strengthened in the knowl- 
edge and love of God which comes of the Beati- 
fic Vision. Seeing God face to face (I. Cor. xiii. 
12) as He is (I. John iii. 2), we must needs know 
and love all the citizens of God's Kingdom ; the 
love of the brethren is the necessary conse- 
quence of the love of God. The unity for 
which Christ prayed will then be perfectly real- 
ized : " that they all may be one, as thou Father 
in Me, and I in Thee ; that they also may be 
one in us" (John xvii. 21). 

What is the meaning of the words : " Heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but my word shall 
not pass away"? (Mark xiii. 31). 



57° 



The Question Box. 



I never could understand why this question 
was asked so frequentl) r , save perhaps for one 
reason, that the unthinking questioner imag- 
ined that the word " heaven " referred to God's 
kingdom hereafter, whereas it refers to the stars 
and planets of the material heavens. 

The meaning of the Saviour is evident. He 
declares that all created things are uncertain 
and perishable, but that His word is certain and 
eternal. If, then, He, the Son of God, prophesy 
the fall of Jerusalem and His second " coming 
w T ith great power and glory," His w r ord must be 
accepted as true. 



HEIyL. 

Do you believe in a personal devil ? 
Why does God not destroy the devil, if He is 
omnipotent ? 
Why did God create Satan ? 

No believer in the Scriptures can deny the 
existence of a personal devil. Throughout the 
Old and New Testament there is mention of 
Satan, Belial, Beelzebub (Iyuke x. 17; II. Cor. 
vi. 15 ; Matt. xii. 24), a wricked (I. John ii. 13), 
proud (I. Tim. iii. 6), powerful (Eph. ii. 2, vi. 
12), cruel (Luke viii. 29, ix. 39; I Pet. v. 8), 
deceitful (Gen. iii. 4 ; II. Cor. xi. 14; Eph. vi. 
II ; II. Thess. ii. 9) Spirit, who tempted our first 



Hell. 



S7i 



parents in the Garden of Eden (Gen. iii. i), 
David (I. Paral. xxi. i), Job (ii. ?), Judas 
(lyuke xxii. 3), our Saviour (Matt. iv. 10), and 
tempts all men to his own eternal ruin of hell. 
(I. Pet. v. 8; Matt. xxv. 41 ; Luke x. 18. Cf. 
Matt. xii. 24; Luke xxii. 31; John viii. 44, 
xiv. 30; II. Cor. iv. 4, xi. 3.) 

God did not create the devil. Out of His 
infinite goodness He created an angel, L,ucifer, 
the head of the angelic host, to serve Him 
freely and love Him for ever. By refusing tc 
pay God the service and worship due Him, 
IyUcifer was cast into hell to become the leader 
of the evil spirits. 

Why did not God give him another trial? 
We simply do not know. Why does God allow 
him to exist? Because in His infinite wisdom 
He made L,ucifer an immortal spirit, and despite 
his power to tempt men, God gives to every 
man sufficient grace to resist. "God will not 
suffer you to be tempted above that which you 
are able" (I. Cor. x. 13). We might ask a 
further question: Why does God allow any 
wicked men to exist on this earth to tempt souls 
to hell ? It is part of the insoluble mystery of 
evil. God is not unjust, for to all He gives free 
will and grace sufficient for the gaining of eter- 
nal happiness. 

Do you believe in progression after death ? I 



572 



The Question Box. 



believe that ultimately all mankind will be 
saved t 

It was the doctrine of the first Universalists 
(Relly and Murray, circ. A. d, 1770) that the 
elect go directly to heaven at death, and the 
non-elect are purified by fire till the day of 
Judgment, when they too will be ultimately 
saved. Some knew the interval of time to 
be exactly forty- four thousand years ! Later 
teachers (Ballou, 1790) denied all future pun- 
ishment. Many Anglicans (Stanley, Maurice, 
Farrar, etc.) cherish a hope in the future salva- 
tion of all mankind (Farrar's 4 'Eternal Hope 
—Mercy and Judgment ")« 

The Catholic Church declares that probation 
ends at death, and that there is no other chance 
hereafter for the repentance of the sinner dying 
in grievous sin. His sentence will be, " Depart 
from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire" 
(Matt. xxv. 41). 

To suppose that hereafter the hardened sin- 
ner will repent, is to assume without warrant 
that punishment always causes repentance. 
But even in this world obstinate criminals be- 
come worse when they do not accept their pun- 
ishment as the just due of their misdeeds. A 
prisoner who was nearing the end of a twenty 
years' sentence once told me, when I asked him 
was he sorry for the crime he committed : " No, 
and I will be revenged on society when I am 



Hell. 



573 



free." On what principle, then, can any one 
claim that punishment hereafter will inevitably 
work the conversion of the obdurate sinner? 

What must Catholics believe regarding eternal 
punishment ? 

What proof is there of eternal punishment? 

The Catholic dogma declares there is a Hell, 
or state of eternal punishment. Thus we read 
in the Athanasian Creed: i 'And they that 
have done good shall go into life everlasting, 
and they that have done evil, into everlasting 
fire." The proof of the doctrine is found in the 
many clear texts of the Scriptures, and the con- 
stant witness of the Church of God from the 
beginning. Again and again the Scriptures 
expressly declare that the pains of hell are eter- 
nal, that the fire will not be extinguished, that 
the w T orm (of remorse) will not die, that the 
wicked shall never enter the kingdom of God, 
etc. "Depart from me, you cursed, into ever- 
lasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41). "Their worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. 
. • . It is better for thee to enter into life 
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, 
into unquenchable fire" (Mark ix. 44, 45). 
"He that shall blaspheme against the Holy 
Ghost shall never have forgiveness, but shall 
be guilty of an everlasting sin" (Mark iii. 29). 
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul- 



574 



The Question Box. 



terers . . . shall possess the kingdom of 
God" (I. Cor. vi. 9, 10). "Who shall suffer 
eternal punishment in destruction from the lace 
of the Lord " (II. Thess. i. 9). " To whom the 
storm of darkness is reserved for ever" (Jude 

13). 

No forced interpretation of the word aionios 
(eternal) can gainsay the clear sense of the 
sacred text. " If Christ had intended to teach 
the doctrine of eternal punishment, could He 
possibly have taught it in plainer or more direct 
terms? If He did not intend to teach it, could 
He possibly have chosen language more certain 
h priori to mislead, as the unbroken experience 
of eighteen centuries proves <% posteriori that it 
always has misled the immense multitude of 
His disciples" (Oxenham, " Catholic Escha- 
tology," ch. iv. p. 102). < 

Reason cannot demonstrate the dogma of 
eternal punishment, but it can show that this 
teaching of Revelation cannot be gainsaid by 
reason. The whole question of evil is one of 
the most obscure and difficult for the human 
mind; yet the Catholic Church, while declaring 
that its perfect solution is for the world to come ? 
has the best answer to all the objections of un- 
belief. 

' Men have sometimes asserted that eternal 
punishment was a doctrine evolved by Chris- 
tianity the better to control the ignorant multi- 



Hell. 575 

tude. How, then, do they account for the Hell, 
or Tartarus, of Plato and of Virgil? (Abbe 
Meric, "V Autre Vie," Paris, 1880; Oxen- 
ham, " Catholic Eschatology," London, 1876; 
" That Unknown Country," Article by Rev. A. 
F. Hewit, Springfield, Mass., 1889, pp. 459- 
474; Carle, " Du dogme catholique sur l'enfer," 
1842; Shedd, Prot., "The Doctrine of Eternal 
Punishment"; Dublin Review, Jan., 1881.) 

How can an infinitely good, merciful God con- 
demn the creatures He loves to everlasting tor- 
ments? 

It is common with unbelievers to throw dust 
in the eyes of the ignorant by presenting one 
side of a question and ignoring the other, for- 
getting that Christianity is one great harmoni- 
ous system of the Revelation of God. One 
moment the argument runs : " God is too good 
to punish His creatures for all eternity ' ' ; the 
next moment, to deny His providence, the same 
man will argue: "The world is too full of 
misery and wretchedness to be the creation of 
an All-Good Creator." God is too good — or 
God is too evil ; it all depends on whether the 
objector would deny hell or providence. Is this 
honest? We must remember, too, that it is 
only the weakness of our intellects which makes 
us separate the attributes of God, which by 
their nature are one and identical. 



576 



The Question Box. 



Without any. knowledge of Christian princi- 
ples, it would seem at first sight that infinite 
goodness and mercy are incompatible with eter- 
nal punishment. Granting that after all expla- 
nations the element of mystery must remain 
when finite man considers the infinite counsels 
of God (" How incomprehensible are His judg- 
ments, and how unsearchable His ways," Rom. 
xi. 33), still, reason has an answer. 

You have not considered, on the other hand, 
that the denial of eternal punishment cannot be 
reconciled with the justice of God. 

Will you tell me that a just God, who is the 
Lawgiver and Lord of men, can give His king- 
dom to one guilty of unrepented murder, adul- 
tery, seduction, avarice, or drunkenness? That 
a just God can give eternal happiness to one 
who has all his life long despised and set at 
naught His mercy, and who has died obstinate 
in evil ? 

Man is not a mere automaton, nor a mere ani- 
mal of sense and instinct, nor an independent, 
self-ruling being, but a creature created after 
God's image and likeness, with intellect to 
know the good and free will to choose it, — with 
sufficient grace always to know God's revela- 
tion, and to do God's will. If such a being 
deliberately abuse these gifts and graces, refus- 
ing to acknowledge his dependence on God his 
Creator and Lawgiver, freely choosing mere 



Hell. 



577 



creatures in place of his God, and die insolently 
refusing to fulfil his destiny, — can God do 
aught to this adorer of self than to leave him 
to his choice for all eternity? Why, the un- 
repentant sinner would be as out of place in 
heaven as a tramp amid the luxury of an Inau- 
guration ball. A son has rebelled against a 
Father ; a friend turned traitor against a Friend ; 
a creature against a Creator — and yet forsooth 
Jesus Christ, the God of all justice, must say to 
the rebel creature that still hates Him : 4 ' Come, 
ye blessed of my Father, possess you the king- 
dom " (Matt. xxv. 34). This is only thought- 
less sentimentality, which, having lost alto- 
gether the conviction of the malice of sin, re- 
fuses to see God's justice in punishing the 
sinner. 

How could a loving God create some of His 
creatures for eternal damnation ? 

John Calvin in the sixteenth century taught 
that God created some men for eternal perdition, 
but this has never been the teaching of the 
Catholic Church. It was natural that men who 
mistook this cruel God for the God of the Chris- 
tians rejected Christianity altogether. 

The Council of Trent condemned most strongly 
this doctrine of predestination, by declaring 
that God sincerely wills to save those who are 
not of the number of the predestined. (On 



578 



The Question Box. 



Justification, Sess. vi. can. 17. Cf. Matt, xxiii. 
27; John iii. 16.) Indeed, the doctrine of the 
Catholic Church is that God sincerely wills all 
men to be saved, as is evident from the Scrip- 
tures : 1 ' He is the propitiation for our sins ; and 
not for ours only, but also for those of the 
whole world* ' (I. John ii. 2) ; ' 4 Behold Him who 
taketh away the sin of the world n (John i. 29) ; 
"And Christ died for air' (II. Cor. v. 15); 
" God our Saviour who will have all men to be 
saved, and to come to the knowledge of the 
truth" (I. Tim. ii. 4). 

It is undoubtedly true that God foreknows 
the eternal loss of the unrepentant sinner. Why, 
then, continues our questioner, did He create 
such a one ? 

There is a great mystery involved herein, yet 
it is wrong to accuse God of this evil ; He is not 
the author of any evil. God is the Eternal 
present ; with Him there is no past, there is no 
future. He is the All-Knowing One, or He 
ceases to be God. He knows the event, there- 
fore, because it occurs ; but it does not occur 
because God knows it. His foreknowledge in 
no way affects our freedom of will. 

We are created by God with intellect to know 
the good, and free will to choose it. Moral 
creatures, therefore, with a conscience within 
us judging knowingly the right and the wrong, 
we are responsible for the wrong freely chosen. 



Hell 



579 



If we die in sin, we choose the wrong for all 
eternity; and having had the sufficient grace of 
God to the last, we are guilty of our own damn- 
ing. We cannot lay the responsibility of it 
upon Him. This is common sense. This is 
the teaching of the Church of God. 

I do not comprehend it, you tell me. Do you 
expect to comprehend the mysteries of the Infi- 
nite God ? Iyike one who, looking at the re- 
verse side of a beautiful tapestry, sees only the 
mere unmeaning medley of numberless slipped 
stitches and knots, so we from our world point 
of view understand not the grand plan of God. 
One day from His view-point we shall behold the 
beauty of the design unintelligible to us now. 

In things human, we readily see how fore- 
knowledge does not imply the causing of the 
thing foreknown. I warn a poor swimmer not 
to venture in an angry sea, for I am certain he 
will drown if he attempt it. Am I responsible 
for his death because he went counter to my 
bidding ? 

God warns a soul he loves not to venture in the 
sea of grievous sin, for He is certain that if he 
persist therein he will perish for life everlasting. 
Is God responsible for the sinner's eternal death, 
because freely and deliberately he refused to 
obey the bidding of his Lord and Master? 

But you will tell me the comparison is faulty. 
You could not help your stubborn friend, but 



58o 



The Question Box. 



God could help the sinner by giving him more 
grace, so that he must needs repent. Why does 
He not do it ? No one can answer this ques- 
tion. The distribution of God's graces is an 
incomprehensible mystery. We know, how- 
ever, that God has given the sinner sufficient 
grace to save him, and that if he is lost he used 
his free will to resist grace, and so fell short of 
his eternal destiny. God could give enough 
grace to insure this man's salvation, but you 
cannot call Him unjust because He does not. 
The sinner has chosen sin freely, and God leaves 
him his choice for ever. 

Suppose for an instant that God could not 
create a soul whom He foresaw would be lost by 
the abuse of free will and grace. It would 
follow then that every one, by the very fact of 
creation, and without any effort on their part, 
would be infallibly certain of heaven. 

Li this were the case, man, who is created with 
the free will to choose either good or evil, could 
give himself up to the full satisfaction of every 
evil desire and passion, feeling confident that 
God must one day give him eternal happiness. 
What becomes then of the distinction between 
good and evil? What sanction would there be 
to the moral law ? 

Indeed, the foreknowledge of eternal ruin of 
the sinner brings out — paradoxical as it may 
seem — the goodness of God, who deigned to 



Hell. 



58i 



give to certain ones the gift of existence, even 
though He knew they would abuse this gift. 

But you may object further, why did God 
give men this perilous gift of free will? 

God, in His infinite goodness, created men to 
His image and likeness, to be one with Him in 
love for all eternity. To love God, we must 
know Him and serve Him, and that freely. As 
a circle implies a centre, so man's dignity implies 
the freedom of choice. How absurd, then, to 
call God cruel if I abuse His most precious gift 
of free will to my eternal ruin. 

What is the Catholic teaching regarding the 
torments of hell ? 

How can God take delight for ever in the agony 
of his creatures ? 

Archbishop Kenrick, in his Dogmatic The- 
ology (Tract x. ch. 3), says : " Of the kinds of 
punishments which the condemned undergo, the 
Church has put forth no definition. No one 
has satisfactorily explained what punishments 
are designated by the name of fire in the Scrip- 
tures. It is sufficient to regard the suffering 
as proceeding from the condition in which sin- 
ners are placed as being remote from the king- 
dom of heaven. It is not necessary to conceive 
of God positively inflicting pain." 

No, hell is made by man himself. Eternal 
damnation is not, as Calvin taught, an arbitrary 



582 



The Question Box. 



infliction of an eternally predestined decree, nor 
a satisfaction of a revengeful deity, as unbe- 
lievers love to call it. The essential punish- 
ment of hell is the abandonment by God of the 
sinner to himself and his formed habits of sin. 
After years of helping grace, God has at last 
withdrawn from a man the graces he persistently 
rejected, and thus he dies in his sins. 

Many reject the doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment because they believe the Catholic dogma 
implies God and His saints gloating over the 
sufferings of the damned, tormented by count- 
less demons armed with many instruments of 
torture; nothing but a fathomless abyss of im- 
penetrable darkness and unimaginable stench, 
where snakes, and griffins, and worms, and 
blue-tongued flames encircle and entwine the 
writhing bodies of the lost — a Hell of the im- 
agination only, evolved in bad taste out of the 
fertile brain of some exaggerated preacher, or 
from too literal an interpretation of highly 
figurative passages of Scripture. But the 
language of poetry should not be confounded 
with the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

The chief punishment of Hell is the loss of 
the vision of God, and all that this entails. 
The Church has defined nothing further, al- 
though the common teaching, based on many 
passages of the Scriptures (Matt. xiii. 42 ; L,uke 
xvi. 24 ; Heb. x. 27 ; Apoc. xx. 9, etc.), is that 



Hell. 



583 



there will also be a sensible suffering caused by 
fire. 

Is it not unjust to punish a few years of sin 
with an eternity of punishment ? 

The comparison should not be made between 
a few years of sin, on the one hand, and an eter- 
nity of punishment, on the other, bat rather 
between a sinner eternally obstinate in unre- 
pented sin and a God eternally holy, whose 
eyes are too pure to look on iniquity (Hab. i. 13). 

A man that realizes the immeasurable malice 
of sin, and the infinite holiness of God, will not 
question the justice of eternal punishment, 
especially when he reflects that it is of the sin- 
ner's own choosing. 

You do not pronounce society unjust w,hen it 
inflicts the death-penalty — the greatest possible 
— upon the murderer. Indeed, human justice 
never considers the duration of a crime as the 
measure of the duration of the penalty to be 
inflicted. 

I could never be happy in heaven if I thought 
that any one I loved, i. e., my child, was suffer- 
ing in hell. Can a man be happy in heaven with 
his wife and children in hell? 

This is equivalent to saying : I could not be 
happy in heaven if I were unhappy for all 
eternity in heaveri. We fully appreciate the 



584 



The Question Box. 



extremes of human affection in this life. We 
have known mothers loving to the last the most 
cruel, unnatural sons ; wives faithful to the most 
heartless, drunken husbands, and friends true 
to the most ungrateful wretches in the world . 
But there always is the hope in these loving 
hearts that one day — it may be years hence— 
their love shall be returned. It is worth wait- 
ing for. 

But the hate in the soul of the sinful one in 
hell is everlasting. Can we love what God 
does not want us to love, because totally un- 
worthy ? An illustration will make this clean 
You have a strong affection for your mother 
and for a friend you have known and loved from 
boyhood. Your friend calumniates the mother 
that bore you, to her great sorrow and unhap- 
piness. The greater love you bear your mother 
compels you to abandon your friend. 

So likewise in the life to come, you will see 
things as they are from the view-point of God 
You will only love what He loves. If, indeed, 
there were anything in Hell or on earth that 
would interfere with the everlasting happiness 
of heaven, God would divert your soul from 
considering it. Make the comparison. God 
and your unrepentant child in Hell are in a 
relation similar to your mother and your false 
Iriend. The higher love leads you instantly to 
abandon the one who died "having trodden 



Hell. 



58S 



under foot the Son of God, . . . and having 
offered an affront to the Spirit of grace " (Heb. 
x. 29). 

Is not every man punished enough in this life ? 
I believe that the sinner has his hell here. 

Would not a limited . punishment hereafter suf- 
fice ? 

" It is not true . . . that the culprit ex- 
periences already in this life chastisement 
enough for his faults. Gnawing remorse indeed 
torments him ; the infirmities produced by his 
irregularities grow on him, and the disastrous 
consequences of his perverse conduct weigh him 
down ; but neither is he wanting in means to 
blunt the sharp sting of his conscience ; neither 
is he devoid of artifices to neutralize the evil 
effects of his revels, nor short of resources to 
come clear out of the false positions in which 
his excesses have involved him" (J. Balmes, 
"Letters to a Sceptic, " iii.) 

Our Lord plainly taught that the sinner 
might be fairly well content in this life. " Woe 
to you (wicked) that are rich; for you have 
your consolation " (Luke vi. 24); and in the 
parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19- 
30), "Son, remember that thou didst receive 
good things in thy life-time, and Lazarus evil 
things; but now he is comforted, and thou art 
cormented. ,, - 



586 The Question Box. 

It is unreasonable to suppose that a punish- 
ment hereafter of limited duration would an- 
swer just as well. Taking men as they are, we 
know that only the threat of an eternity of 
punishment would be a sufficient curb to their 
evil passions and desires in this life, and 
therefore a means of their repentance. A sin- 
ner could brave God with impunity ; he could 
set at naught the whole moral law when it 
went counter to his present, sensible enjoy- 
ment, if he knew that after a certain term of 
punishment — be it ten, one hundred, or one 
thousand years — he were to enjoy an eternity 
of happiness. Hell would cease instantly to be 
the sanction of the moral order; it would be- 
come a Purgatory, inspiring little or no terror 
to the heart of the average man. Every man 
knows that there is no probation in the life to 
come, and that he is responsible to God for 
the life he has lived on earth. 

Is it conceivable in reason that God should con- 
sign the great majority of the human race to 
eternal perdition? 

The Catholic Church never advanced such a 
doctrine. Some individual writers — Catholic 
and Protestant — have done so, but it is the part 
of wisdom not to mistake the private specula- 
tions of a few concerning the unfathomable 
secrets of God for the teachings of Christianity. 



Hell 587 

Is it just that the entire pagan world — more 
than two-thirds of the race— should be damned to 
eternal hell-fire? 

The Reformers held such a teaching as the 
logical consequence of their false notion of 
original sin, but the Catholic Church never did. 
With Luther, Calvin, and others the virtues of 
the heathen were vices deserving of damnation 
(Mohler's Symbolism, Book I. ch. ii. sec. vii.), 
and consequently there was no possibility of 
their salvation. The Catholic Church con- 
demns strongly these false and cruel teach- 
ings, and holds most firmly that no one, 
pagan or Christian, will ever be eternally pun- 
ished hereafter who has not with full knowl- 
edge and deliberate consent turned his back 
upon God, and died in mortal sin. 

Is not the fear of hell a low, unworthy motive 
on which to base our moral life? 

We are willing to grant that it is not the 
highest motive, which is sorrow for sin and ser- 
vice of God out of pure love for Himself alone. 
But all men are not saints, nor are all 
striving after perfection. This pretended con- 
tempt for the motive of fear is without basis in 
reason or the Word of God. 

"The fear of the Lord," says Holy Writ, 
"is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. ix. 10). 
Those that do not fear God will never love Him. 



588 



The Question Box, 



So in the Old Law God continually appeals tc 
this motive (Ps. xxxiii. 10, lxv. 16, cxiii. 115 
Eccl. v. 6 ; Dan. vi. 26), and Jesus Christ is 
equally explicit : i ' rather fear Him that can 
destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matt. x. 
28. Cf. Matt. iii. 7). 

In this life men value the motive of fear, as is 
evident from the punishments in every law code 
of the world. The same men who deny it as a 
motive in the moral order will often tremble 
before the bar of public opinion when voiced in 
the denunciation of the public press, or will, 
again, at the hour of death dread the prospect 
of facing the Goc| they strove vainly in life to 
deny. 

Is not the doctrine of eternal punishment re- 
pugnant to the spirit of the age ? 

Yes, undoubtedly, if by "the spirit of the 
age 1 ' you mean the spirit of modern unbelief 
which denies the existence of a personal God 
as the Creator, Lord, or Final End of all crea- 
tures ; which is jealous of the supernatural, in- 
tolerant of dogma, sceptical of grace, contemp- 
tuous of the Word of God; independent of 
tradition, loving self-indulgence, judging all 
tarings by merely natural standards ; which has, 
in fine, lost all idea of responsibility to God, and 
all sense of sin and its immeasurable malice. 

It is the tendency also of kumaua legislation 



Hell. 



589 



to lessen the penalty for crime. No nation — 
and rightly too—would tolerate for a moment 
to-day the fearful dungeons and tortures of a 
few hundred years ago. Many indeed inveigh 
most strongly against the justice of capital pun- 
ishment, while others falsely regard all criminal 
penalties as merely corrective. 

But the eternal law of God does not change 
with the varying laws of men. Hell exists be- 
cause of the free, deliberate refusal of the 
rational creature to fulfil the destiny for which 
he was created. 

To the true Christian of any age the only 
question can be : Is the doctrine of eternal pun- 
ishment true? And reason, Scripture, and the 
infallible witness of the living voice of God's 
true Church say that it is. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, 



PAGE 

THE Existence of God — Argument from design, i 

Common consent of mankind, ... 3 

The Moral Argument, .... 3 

Savage tribes and belief in God, 5 

Morality and Atheism, . . . 6 

Divine Providence — Prosperity of the wicked, B 7 

Prosperity and adversity and the future life, 8 

Moral and Physical Evil — and God's goodness, 9 

The Immortality of the Soul— Common con- 
sent of mankind, 13 

Inequality and sufferings of this life, . . 13 
Incompleteness of this life, . . . .14 

Argument from conscience, ... 14 

Argument from the spirituality of the soul, 15 

The Necessity of Revelation— historical argu- 
ment, 15 

Religion and Environment, . . . 17 

Religion and Emotional Excitement, . 19 

SNDIFFERENTISM — reaction from early Protestant- 
ism, . , B 9 . . . . 20 

Necessity of Creeds, 22 

Indifference to doctrine wholly unscriptural, 24 

Contrast between the Church and the sects, 25 

MYSTERIES — Why and when to be believed, . , 29 

Absurdity of a priori objection to them, . 31 
Impartiality of mind, reasonable and unrea- 
sonable, o ... 1 • • .32 

Mysteries in nature, . . . . . 33 

Mysteries inevitable in revealed truth, . * 35 
500-9? 



592 Table of Contents, 



PAG2 

Mysteries and private interpretation of Scrip- 

ture, • a s o • • • 3^ 

The Trinity, . . - . . . . , .37 

Christian Faith ... „ * 38 

Miracles — In relation to known laws of nature, . 40 

Do not imply a change in God, 41 

In relation to occult laws of nature, . . 41 

Proper evidence to prove miracles, . . 42 

True and false miracles, . . . * 43 

The Gospels, 45 

The Divinity of Christ— Not antecedently in- 
credible, . 48 

No Christianity without it, . . 49 

Christ's own assertion of it, . # . 49 

The Apostles' belief and teaching about it, 52 

Evidence from Christ's Miracles, . . • 53 

The prophetical argument, . . . 55 
Argument from Christ's sanctity of life and 

doctrine, 56 

Argument from overruling Providence, , 57 

Explanation of His rejection by the Jews, . 59 

The Incarnation and Redemption— Two na- 
tures in one person, .... 60 
Equity of one atoning for another's sin, . 62 

The Bible as a Rule of Faith, ... 63 
Inconsistency of this Rule, . . . .65 

Bible dependent on a teaching Church, . 65 

Difficulties in understanding it, . . 65 

Not appointed to be the only Rule of Faith, 69 

Historical objections to Protestant view. . 70 

It cannot be a universal Rule, ... 70 
Breeds inevitable dissension, . . .70 

Difficulties in John v. 39 and Acts xvii. 1 1, 73 



Table of Contents, 593 



PAGE 

Divine Tradition and the Catholic Rule 

of Faith, 75 

The Church and the canon and inspiration ot 
Scripture, . . . . . . 76 

Intrinsic evidence of inspiration, . . .80 
Versions of Scripture in the Middle Ages, 83 
Versions of Scripture in Reformation times, 84 
The Church and Bible reading, ... 86 
The Bible in the Public Schools, . . .89 

Creation in Six Days, 90 

Who was Cain's wife ? 91 

The Age of the Human Race, ... 93 
The Vicious Circle— How the Church and the 

Bible mutually prove each other, , . 96 
The Church — Conditions for reception into the 

Church, * . . 98 

Kindly feelings of Catholics for non-Catholics, 100 
Opposition of converts' relatives, . # 101 
Visibility of the Church, .... 103 
Infallibility of the Church— argument from 

Scripture, 105 

Argument from Reason, . . . 105 
Infallibility and liberty of thought, . . 114 
Luther and liberty of thought, . . 121 
The Church's legislative authority, . , 122 
Infallibility and personal religion, . . 123 
Why so many reject the Church's claims, . 125 
The Church and direct union of the soul with 

God, 127 

The Church and the private conscience, . 129 
Indefectibility of the Church— Did the 

Church actually err? .... 131 
True and false Reformation, , . .13a 



594 



Table of Contents. 



PAG* 

Savonarola, •••••• 134 

Unity of the Church, . . . . 9 135 

Definition of new Dogmas, . . ' m 136 
Development of Doctrine, . . . .138 

The Church and modern Science, . . 140 
Are Protestants agreed on Essentials? . 142 
Charity as a bond of unity, . G s 146 
Unity and the Great Schism of the West, . 147 

Holiness of the Church.— Human and divine 

elements in the Church, . . . 148 
How a sinful man remains a Catholic, . 150 
Holiness outside the Church, . . 152 
Unholy Protestant doctrines, . .152 
Summary of the Church's note of holiness, 154 
Lack of material prosperity of Catholic 

peoples 155 

Keeping faith with heretics, . e e 159 
John Huss and the Council of Constance, 160 
The Church and Intemperance, . 9 161 
Does the end justify the means? . B 163 

Mental Reservation, 165 

Catholics and Superstitious Practices, . 167 
The Jesuits and the Monita Secreta, . 168 

Catholicity of the Church, . . .169 
Protestantism lacks this note, . . 171 
Qualities of true Catholicity, . . .173 
Relative numbers of Catholics, Protestants, 
and Greeks, ...... 174 

Anglican claim to Catholicity and continuity, 174 
Origin of the term Catholic, . . . 181 
Origin of the term Protestant, « , 182 
The term Roman Catholic and Romanist, 183 
The Greek Church, its history and status, 184 



Table of Contents. 



595 



PAGE 

vpostolicity OF the Church— Protestant claim 

to this Note 187 

Apostolical Succession, . . . . 188 
Anglican, Greek and Catholic claims com- 
pared, 191 

The Branch theory, . . . . 192 

The Anglican Church not founded by St. Paul, 194 
Why Anglicans are Protestants, . . 195 
The Charge of Intolerance, ... 196 
Explanation of " outside the Church no salva- 
tion," . . . . . . . 197 

Why Catholics are forbidden to join in Prot- 
estant worship, 202 

And in Spiritualistic Seances, . . 206 
Catholics and Christian Science and The- 

osophy, 209 

The Church and persecution, . . . 218 
Protestants and persecution, . . .221 
The Spanish Inquisition, . . . 226 
Persecution of the Albigenses, . . . 232 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, . 233 
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, . . 238 
Persecutions by Queen Mary of England, 240 
Excommunication, and prohibition to read 

bad books, 241 

Cremation, 242 

Condemnation of the Freemasons and other 

Secret Societies, 244 

Catholics and the Public Schools, . . 248 
The Occasions of Sin — dancing, card-playing, 

theatres, . . . . . 252 

Sunday Observance— the Jewish Sabbath abol- 
ished, holydays, , , .... 254 

1 



596 



Table of Contents. 



PAGE 

Abstinence and Fasting, .... 256 
Women in the Churches, .... 259 
The Sign of the Cross, .... 259 

Scapulars, 261 

Ceremonies— expensive church buildings, . 261 
Devout Practices — incense, holy water, candles, 267 
Vestments, medals, the Agnus Dei, Holy 

Ashes, 272 

Blessed Palm, Church Bells, the Forty Hours, 

the Vespers, 272 

Saint Peter in Rome, 274 

The Papal Authority— Scriptural and historical 

evidence, 278 

Is Christ the Rock? 282 

Relation of Peter to Christ and the other 

Apostles, 283 

The Primacy of the Popes — Alexander VI. 's 

division of newly discovered countries, . 292 
The fable of a female pope, . . . 293 

The false decretals, 294 

Plurality of Popes, 295 

Papal primacy and Episcopal authority, . 298 
Perpetuity of the papal power, . . 298 
The Pope and anti-Christ, . . . 299 
The Pope and external pomp, . . 299 
The Pope and his temporal dominions, . 300 
Papal Infallibility — antecedent probability, 302 
Limitations of papal infallibility, . . 304 
St. Peter's denial of our Saviour, . . 308 
The case of Pope Liberius, ... . 308 
The case of Pope Honorius, . . . 309 

Unworthy popes, 311 

The papacy and Galileo, , ♦ . .312 



Table of Contents. 597 



PAGK 

The Suppression of the Jesuits, . . 320 
The papacy in the Middle Ages, . . 320 
The papacy and civil allegiance, . . 322 
The Doctrine of Justification— by Faith 

alone, . . • . . . 326 

Total Depravity, 329 

Catholic doctrine of good works, . . 330 
Works of Supererogation, . . . 333 
Prayer — its necessity — in relation to God's fore- 
knowledge, 335 

Repetitions in prayer — the Rosary, . 338 

Efficacy of prayer, 342 

Protestant ending of the Lord's Prayer, 344 
The Sacraments— their nature and institution and 

ministry, . . . - . . . . 345 
The Baptism of John, .... 353 
Feet-washing not a sacrament, . . .* 353 
The indelible mark imprinted, . . 354 

Baptism — Original Sin, 354 

Necessity of Baptism, .... 356 

Different kinds of Baptism, . . . 358 
Not merely an external ceremony, or figura- 
tive, ....... 359 

Infants dying unbaptized, .... 361 

Rebaptizing converts, .... 362 

Protestant Sponsors, 363 

Baptism by Immersion, .... 363 

Infant Baptism, 367 

Baptism for the dead, .... 369 
Confirmation — nature and institution, . . 370 
Penance — different grades of guilt in sinners, 372 
Auricular Confession — Scripture and patristic 
proofs 374 



598 



Table of Contents. 



PAGE 

The power of absolution a delegated one, 380 
The dispositions of a true penitent, . 381 
Direct confession to God, .... 382 
Influence of confession on the priest, . 384 
Secrecy of the confessor, . 384 
Alleged modern origin of auricular confession, 385 
Effect of confession on character, . . 389 
When confession is dispensed with, . 393 
Various objections considered, . . . 393 
Confession in the Anglican Church, . 397 
" Conversion " and " change of heart," . 398 
Confession not degrading, . . . 398 

Indulgences — explanation and history of, . 40c 
Never permitted to be sold, . . . 405 
Meaning of partial indulgences, . . .413 
Offered for the dead, • . . 414 

The Jubilee explained, . . . .415. 

The Holy Eucharist — Explanation of the dogma 

of Transubstantiation, .... 416 
Exposition of John vi., . . . .419 
The words of Institution at the Last Supper, 428 
Arguments for figurative meaning considered, 432 
Argument of impossibility considered, . 435 
The Real Presence among Anglicans, . 441 
Communion under one kind, . . . 442 
Destruction of the Sacred Host — Genuflex- 
ions — fasting before Communion, . . 446 
Benediction oi ;ne Blessed Sacrament, . 447 

The Mass — its meaning — high Mass and low, . 449 
A true sacrifice, identical with that of Cal- 
vary, . . 450 

Mass and the Souls in Turgatory, . . 454 
Grave obligation to hear Mass, . . 455 



Table of Contents. 



599 



PAGE 

The Liturgy used at Mass, . . .455 

Paying money for Masses, . . . 457 

Use of the Latin tongue, .... 461 

Orders — their necessity and institution, . 466 

Orders in the primitive Church, . . . 467 

Why the priest is called Father, . . 468 

Religious Communities — their origin and nature, 469 

The Evangelical counsels and the vows, . 471 
Calumnies against the monks of the Middle 

Ages, ........ 474 

Alleged cruel treatment of Nuns, . . 477 

Why women cannot be ministers of religion, 478 

Anglican Orders — the Pope's bull against them, 479 

Celibacy — origin — reasons for it, . . . 483 

Scriptural and other objections considered, 491 

Married clergy of the East, . . . 497 

Matrimony — its indissolubility proved, . . 497 
Dispensations for impediments, . . . 504 
Napoleon's case, and that of Jerome Bona- 
parte, . . . 505 

Luther sanctioned bigamy, . . . 507 

Mixed Marriages — reasons for Church's aversion 

for them, . . . . . . 508 

Conditions under which they are permitted, 510 

When marriages of Protestants may be valid, 511 

Prohibited times for solemnizing marriages, 513 

Extreme Unction — its institution and nature, . 513 

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints— The ac- 
cusation <of idolatrous worship, . . 515 
The title, "Mother of God"— dignity of 

Mary, 517 

Veneration of Mary not hurtful but advanta- 
geous to ^*ligion, 522 



6oo Table of Contents, 



PAGE 

Christ's treatment of His Mother not disre- 
spectful, 525 

Mary and Christ's mediatorship, . . 527 

The Immaculate Conception, . . . 529 

Mary's perpetual virginity, . . . 534 

Her Assumption, 536 

The Rosary, 537 

The Saints— Honor paid to them, ... 538 

Miracles worked by their Intercession, . 546 

Images and Pictures, 547 

Relics, 553 

Pilgrimages, * . 557 

The Hereafter— The General and Particular 

Judgments, 559 

Limbo, 559 

The Resurrection of the Body, . . . 560 

Purgatory — Explained and proved, . . 562 

Heaven, 568 

Hell — The personality of the devil, . . 570 
Probation after death, « . . .571 

Eternal punishment and God's goodness, 575 

The number of the lost, .... 586 

% * . 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Abstinence on Friday, 256. 
Agnus Dei, the, 272. 
Age of the Human Race, 93-95. 
Albigenses, War against the, 
232. 

Alexander VI., a bad Pope, 311. 
and the Bull Inter Caetera, 
292. 

Alleged Atheistic Tribes, 5. 
Anglican Church, Is it Catholic? 
174-181. 
and confession, 397. 
and Real Presence, 441. 
and Branch Theory, 191-194. 
and Apostolic Succession, 
194. 

Protestantism of, 195-6. 

Its three parties, 192. 

Orders of, invalid, 479-483. 
Anti-Popes, 147. 
Apocrypha, the so-called, 76-78. 
Apostolicity of the Church, 187- 
196. 

Ashes, Blessed, 272. 
Assumption of Blessed Virgin, 
536. 

Atonement, doctrine of, 60. 
Is it unjust ? 62. 

Attendance at Protestant ser- 
vices, 202-206. 

Baptism, 356-369. 
of John, 353. 

necessary for salvation, 357-9. 

conditional, 362. 

by immersion, 363. 

of children, 367. 

for the dead, 369. 

of Converts, 98. 
Bartholomew's day, St., Mas- 
sacre of, 233-238. 
Bells, blessing of church, 272. 
Benediction of the Blessed Saca- 

rament, 447. 
Bible, the, 63-89. 

and Rule of Faith, 63-76. 

6qi 



Bible and Tradition, 75. 
Canon of, 76-78. 
Luther on, 67-77. 
Inspiration of, 78-82. 
in Middle Ages, 82-89. 
Versions of, 85. 
in the Schools, 89. 
Reading of, 83-88. 
Chained, 89. 
Blessed Virgin, 515-538. 
Bloody Mary, 240. 
Books forbidden by the Index 9 
241. 

Branch theory, 191-194. 

Cain, wife of, 91-93. 
Candles, blessed, 269. 
Canon of Bible, 76-78. 
Card-playing, 253. 
Catholicity of Church, 169-186. 
Catholic nations compared with 

Protestant, 155-159. 
Celibacy of clergy, 483-497. 

not introduced by Gregoiy 
VII., 491. 
Ceremonies of the Church, 261- 
265. 

Certainty of faith, 105-127. 
Chastity not impossible, 471, 489- 
90. 

Christ, Divinity of, 48-60. 
Christian Science, 209-217. 
Church and Bible, Vicious Cir- 
cle, 96. 

Conditions of membership, 
98. 

Visibility of, 103-105. 
Teaching authority of, 105- 
125. 

Infallibility of, 105-125. 
Perpetuity of, 109, 131-135. 
and Reason, 33-39, 120-122, 
140. 

and Conscience, 129-131. 
and personal Religion, 102, 
124, 127-131. 



6C2 



General Index. 



Church and the Protestant re- ' 

volt, 131-135. 
Unity of, 135-148. 
Holiness of, 148-169. 
Catholicity of, 169-186. 
Apostolicity of, 187-196. 
and Science, 140-142, 312-320. 
number of adherents, 174 
obligation of attending, 455. 
not a despotism, 118-120. 
why non-Catholics do not 

join, 125-6. 
and State, 322-6. 
alleged intolerance of, 196- 

252. 

Churches, cost of, 265. 
Civil allegiance and the Papacy, 
322-6. 

Commandments, division of, 

550-2. 
of the Church, 122. 
Communion in one kind, 442-6. 
Communities, Religious, 469-79. 
Conception, Immaculate, 137, 

529-33- 

Confession, Auricular, 374-400. 

and Council of Lateran, 386. 

effects of, 390-3. 

money i'or, 396. 

in Protestant Episeopal 
Church, 397. 
Confirmation, ^70. 
Conscience, 6, 14, 129-31. 
Constance, Council of, and Huss, 
159-60. 

and Communion iu one kind, 
442 

Contemplative orders 473-4. 
Convents, public insptc'ici^ of 
478. 

Conversion, nature of, 19. 

conditions necessary toy, ^8, 

hindrances to, 125-7. 

a duty, 196-201. 

Catholic and Protesting, 
meaning of, 398. 
Converts, baptism of, 98, 362. 
Council of Lateran, 385. 
Counsels of Perfection, 469-74. 
Creation in six days, 90, 142. 
Cremation, 242-4. 



Cross, sign of, 259. 

Relics of true, 556. 
Cures of Christian Science, 214. 

Dancing, 252. 
Decretals, false, 294. 
Deposition of civil rulers, 320-22. 
Depravity, total, 329 
Development of doctrine, 136-40. 
Devil, the, 570. 
Different grades in sin, 372. 
Dispensations of Pope, 307. 

of marriage, 510. 
Dispute of the Apostles, 286. 
Dissolution of monasteries by 

Henry VIII., 477. 
Divinity of Christ, 48-60. 
Divorce, 497-507. 

of Napoleon, 506. 

Jerome Bonaparte, 507. 
Dreams, believing in, 167. 
Doctors and medicines not to be 
despised, 216. 

Eddy, Mrs., 209-217. 
Edict of Nantes, 239. 
Education and the Church, 248' 

252, 475-6. 
Ember Days, 258. 
Emotional religion, 19. 
End, A good, does not justify a 

bad means, 163. 
England, Church of, 174, 192 

194-6, 397. 44* • 
Environment and religion, 17. 
Episcopal Church, Cf. Anglican 

Church. 

Essential and non-essential doc 

trines, 20-29, .L42-5. 
Eucharist, the Holy, 416-466. 
in John VI., 419-428. 
in the Gospels and St. Paul, 

428-432. 
Objections answered against, 

432-441, 453. 
Sacrifice of, 449-454. 
HviJ, Problem of, 9-12, 27-8, 578- 
81. 

Excomn.anication, 196-201, 241. 
tiJt^JUV Unction, 513. 



General 



Faith, nature and necessity of, 

18, 20-29, 32. 
Unity of, 24, 135-148. 
and ' Reason, 33-39, 120-2, 

140. 

and the Bible, 63-74. 

of learned and simple, 135. 

Certainty of, 105-127. 
False decretals, 294. 
Fasting, 257. 

before Communion, 447. 
Father as a title for priests, 468. 
Festivals. 255. 
Fortune-telling, 167. 
Forty Hours Devotion, 273. 
Freemasons and the Church,. 
244-8. 

Friday abstinence, 256. 

Galileo, condemnation of, 312- 
320. 

Genuflection, 447. 
God, Existence of, 1-12. 

Foreknowledge and hell, 577- 
81. 

Providence of, 7-8. 

Esseniial truth, 22. 

wills all to be saved, 200. 

Mother of, 517. 
Good faith in non-Catholics, 101, 
197-201. 

works, Catholic and Protest- 
ant doctrine of, 326-331. 
Gospels, authenticity of, 45-7. 

Apocryphal, 46. 
Greek Church, 184-6, 191. 
Gregory VII. and Celibacy, 491. 

Heaven, 568: 
Hell, 573-Si. 

Holiness of the Church, 148-69. 

and Church membership, 150. 

outside the Church, 152. 
Holydays, 255. 

Holy Ghost, sin against the, 373. 
Holy Water, 268. 
Ilunorius, Pope, 309-11. 
Huguenots, massacre of, 233-8. 
Human Race, age of, 93-95. 
Huss, John, 159. 



Index. 603 



Images and Pictures, 547-53. 
Immaculate Conception, 137,, 

529-33- 
Immersion, 363-6. 
Immortality of soul, 13-17. 
Immuring of Nuns, 477. 

Incarnation, the, 60. 
Incense, 267. 

Indifferentism, 20-27, 143-5. 
Index, the, 241. 
Indulgences, 403-15. 

pretended sale of, 409-13. 

and Tetzel, 413. 
Infallibility of the Church, 105- 

125. 
Papal, 303-26. 
and Impeccability, 306. 
and Inspiration, 306. 
Inquisition, Spanish, 226-32. 
Inspiration of the Bible, 78-82. 
Intemperance, Church's attitude 

towards, 161-3. 
Intention, doctrine of, 349. 
Intolerance, 196-252. 

Protestant, 221-25, 22 9> 2 3^> 
240. 

Invocation of Saints, 528, 541-5. 

Jesuits, suppression of, 320. 

alleged immoral teaching of, 
163, 168. 
Joan of Arc and the Pope, 312. 
Jubilee, the, 415. 
Judgment, Particular, 559. 

General, 559. 
Justification, 326-8. 

Latin language, use of, 462-6. 
I ,ent, observance of, 259. 
Liberius, Pope, 308. 
Liberty of thought, 114-125. 
Limbo, 559. 

Lord's Pra>er Protestant ending 

of, 344. 
Luther, on persecution, 221. 

on divorce and bigamy, 507-8. 

on Reason, 121. 

on the Bible, 67. 

on private judgment, 72. 



604 General 



Luther, on the division of Ten 
Commandments, 551. 

and Savonarola, 134. 
Luxury of the Popes, 300. 
Lying never allowed, 159, 

to heretics, 160. 

Marriage, Sacrament of, 497-513. 
mixed, 508. 
dispensations for, 510. 
before minister and justice, 
512. 

of Eastern priests, 497. 
Mary, Mother of God, 517. 

Tudor, 240. 
Mass, the Sacrifice of, 449-466. 

High and Low, 449. 

and souls in purgatory, 454. 

liturgical prayers of, 455. 

obligation of attending, 455. 

stipends for, 457-61. 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 

233-8. 
Materialism, 16. 
Medals, 271. 

Mental Reservation, 165-7. 
Merit, Catholic doctrine of, 330. 
Middle Ages, monks of, 474. 

Bible in, 83-86. 
Millennium, the, 561. 
Miracles, 40-45. 

Why cannot all priests per- 
form? 388. 

Have they ceased? 545. 
Money for Masses, 457-461. 

for confession, 396. 

for churches, 265. 
Monita Secreta, 168. 
Monks and nuns, 469-479. 
Moral evil, existence of, 9-12, 27-8. 
Mortal sin, 372. 
Mysteries in religion, 29-38. 

Nantes, Revocation of Edict, 239. 
Napoleon and divorce, 505-7. 
Nuns and monks, 469-479. 

escaped nuns, testimony of, 

474,478. 

Occasions of sin, 252-3. ' - 



Index. 



Omniscience of God and Prayer, 
335-6. 

Omnipresent, the Blessed Virgin 

not, 516. 
Orders, Religious, 145, 469-79. 

Anglican, 479-83. 

Holy, Sacrament of, 466-8. 
Original sin, 354-6. 

Pagans, salvation of, 200. 
Palms, Blessed, 272. 
Paul, St., not married, 492. 
Penal Laws against Catholics, 

221-25, 230. 
Penance, Sacrament of, 374-400. 

works of, 400-404. 
Penances, Canonical, 404. 
Perfection, Counsels of, 469. 
Persecution, 218, 242. 

by Protestants, 221-5, 230. 
Peter and the other Apostles, 
286-292. 

Bishop of Rome, 274-8. 

denial of, 308. 

rebuke of St. Paul to, 289- 
91. 

Pilgrimages, 557. 
Pope Gregory the Great and title 
of Universal Bishop, 292. 
fable of a female, 293. 
and false decretals, 294. 
and Western schism, 147, 
295. 

and Anti-Christ, 299. 
and the Bishops, 298. 
and temporal power, 300-2. 
not impeccable or inspired, 
306. 

and dispensations, 307. 

Liberius, 308. 

Honorius, 309. 

Alexander VI., 292, 311. 

and Joan of Arc, 312. 

Galileo, 313-320. 

and the Jesuits, 320. 

and the deposing power, 320. 

and civil allegiance, 322-6. 
Popes, wicked, 148, 311. 

luxury of the, 300. 
Prayer, objections to, 335-345. 

repetitions of* 339-42. 



General Index. 



605 



Prayer, Protestant ending of 
Lord's, 344. 

to the saints, 527-9, 541-5. 
Probation after death, 571. 
Profession of faith, Catholic, 101. 
Protestant baptism, 362. 

doctrine of Atonement, 454. 

use of Bible, 63-74. 

when term first used, 182. 

services, attendance at, 203- 
206. 

Protestantism lacks unity, 145-6. 
lacks holiness, 152-4. 
lacks Catholicity, 171-2. 
lacks Apostolicity, 1S7-196. 
tends to infidelity, 22, 116, 

119, 131. 
and Catholicity compared, 

155-159- 

Public Schools and the Church, 

248-52. 
Purgatory, 562-568. 

and indulgences, 413. 

and the Mass, 454, 460. 

Real Presence, the, 416-466. 
Reason and Faith, 33-36. 

and Revelation, 15-17. 
Redemption, Doctrine of, 60-62. 
Reformation, the, 131-135. 
Relics, 553. 

of true Cross, 556. 
Religion and environment, 17. 

revival, 19, 398. 
Religious Communities, 469-479. 

Communities not sects, 145. 
Repetitions in prayer, 338-342. 
Reservation, mental, 165. 
Resurrection of the body, 560. 
Revelation, necessity of, 15. 
Revocation, Edict of Nantes, 239- 
240. 

Rock ? Is Peter the, 282-286. 
Romanist an offensive term, 183 
Roman Catholic, meaning of the 

term, 183. 
Rosary, the, 338-9, 537-8. 

Sabbath, Jewish, changed, 254. 
Sacraments, the, 345-514. 
Sacrifice of the Mass, 449-466. 



Saints, Invocation of, 527, 541-5. 
Saloons, Church's attitude to- 
wards, 161 .3. 
Salvation, conditions of, 196-202. 

outside the Church, 196-202. 

no infallible assurance of, 19. 
Satisfaction for sin, 400-402, 
Savonarola and Luther, 134. 
Scapulars, 167. 

Science and the Church, 140-2. 

and the Popes, 313-320. 

Christian, 209-217. 
Schism of the West, 147, 295. 
Schools, Bible in, 89. 

Public and the Church, 248- 
252. 

Secret Societies and the Church, 
244-8. 

of the confession, 384-5. 

Septuagint, the. 77. 

Sign of the Cross, 259. 

Sin, effects of, 9, 10. 

mortal and venial, 372. 

original, 354-6. 

against the Holy Ghost, 373. 

Sinners and the Church, 150. 

Sinlessness of the Blessed Vir- 
gin, 529, 533. 

Six days of creation, 90, 142. 

Soul, immortality of, 13-15. 

Spanish Inquisition, 226-32. 

Spiritism, 206-9. 

Sponsor, Protestant, at baptism, 
363- 

Succession, Apostolic, 187-196. 
Sunday observance, 254, 455. 
Supererogation, works of, 333. 
Superstition, 167, 206-217. 
Suppression of Jesuits, 320. 

Temperance and Catholic 

Church, 161. 
Temporal power of Popes, 300-2. 
prosperity and the Church, 
155-9- 

punishment for sin, 400-1. 
Theatres, 252. 

Thief on the Cross and purga- 
tory, 402. 
Theosophy, 217. 
Total depravtty, 329. 



6o6 



General Index. 



Tradition, Divine, 75. 
Transubstantiation, 416. 

Episcopalians and, 441. 
Trinity, the, 37-38. 

Unity of the Church, 135-148. 
Universalism, 571-3. 

Veneration of Blessed Virgin, 
518-20. 
of Saints, 539-40. 
Venial sin, 372. 
Vernacular at Mass, 461-6. 



Vespers, 273. 
Vestments, >acied, 270. 
Vicious Circle, 96-98 
Virginity of Blessed Virgin, 534-6. 
'Vows, religious, 469-74. 

Washing of feet, 353-4. 
Water, Holy, 268. 
Western Schism, 147, 2,95-8. 
Will, freedom of, 11-12, 578-81. 
Women in Church, 259. 

preaching, 478-9. 
Works of penance, 400-4. 



INDEX OF AUTHORS. 



A Kempis, Following of Christ, 

339. 557- 
Alcuin, De Decern Verbis Legis, 

55i- 

Allies, Church and State, 281. 

The See of Peter 281. 282. 

The Throne of the Fisher- 
man, 281. 

St. Peter, his name and of- 
fice, 288 

Alnatt, Cathedra Petri, 276. 281. 

Alpho- sus Liguori, St., Verita 
della Fede, 290. 

Alzog, Universal Church His- 
tory, 159, 160, 186, 298, 320, 
380, 458, 468 

Ambrose, St., Baptism, 358 

Amherst, History of Catholic 
Emancipation. 223. 

Apostles, Doctrine of the, 365. 

Arduin, La Religion et Science, 
91. 

Audin, Life of Luther, 87. 
Augustine, St., Contra Epis. 
Fund., 66. 
On Genesis, 90. 
The City of God, 91, 546. 
On Psalm xxx., 112. 
The Unity of the Church, 
145. 

Contra Manich., 182. 
De Baptismo, 358. 
De Nat. et Grat., 533. 
Contra Faust., 540. 

Backus, History of the Baptists, 
225. 

Bagshawe, The Church, 114, 
194, 318. 

Baker, Augustine, Holy Wis- 
dom, 339. 

Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 6 

Balmes, Letters to a Skeptic, 27, 
585- 

Catholicity and Protestant- 
ism Compared, 159, 232. 



Bancroft, History of the United 

States, 225. 
Bede, St , Historia, 177 
Bellarmin. De Indulgentiis, 406. 
Bellasis, Was Barlow a Bishop? 

483- 

Bellord, Relics of True Cross, 
556. 

Benedict XIV., On Canoniza- 
tion, 547. 

Beringer, Indulgences, 406. 

Berti, Galilee, 319. 

Biblical Encyclopedia, Baptism, 
366. 

Blanchy, Du, Extra Ecclesiam 

mon est Salus, 200. 
Bloomfield, 285 

Bougaud, The Divinity of Jesus 

Christ, 57. 
Bouquard, Galile'e, 320. 
Brantome, Vie de M. l'Amiral de 

Cha-t 1 on. 235. 
Breen, Introduction to the Study 

of Holy Scripture, 82. 
Brennan, W hat Catholics have 

done for Science, 142 
Bridgett, The Ritual of the New 

I estament, 74, 265. 
Brownson, O. A., Works, 119. 
Bruno, Faa di, Catholic Belief, 

356. 

Buckle, History of Civilization, 
236. 

Bulletin, The Catholic Univer- 
sity, 160 

Burnet, History of the Reforma- 
tion, 481. 

Calvin, John, Institutes, 360. 
Com. sur 1'Evang , 518. 

Caramuel, Theologia Fundamen- 
talis, 317. 

Carle, Sur l'enfer, 575. 

Catechism of Third Plen. Coun- 
cil, 359. 404. 

Catholic World, Galileo, 320. 



607 



6o8 



Index of Authors. 



Cave, Script. Ecc. Hist. Litera- 
ria, 274, 

Chambers' Encyclopedia (Salem 

Witchcraft), 230. 
Chrysostom, Horn, in Phil., 455. 
Civilta Cattolica, Massacre of St. 

Bartholomew, 234. 
Clarke, R. F. (Cath. Truth Soc), 

295. 

Clifford, Bishop (on Creation), 
91. 

Cobbett, History of the Refor- 
mation, 477. 

Coconnier, L'hypnotisme franc, 
215. 

Collier, Ecclesiastical History, 
481. 

Coppens. Is Freemasonry anti- 
Christian? (Am. Eccl. 
Review), 246. 
Corluy, Les Freres de Jesus 

Christ, 535. 
Cox, The Pillar and Ground of 

the Truth, 114. 
Cranmer, Catechism, 551. 

On Anglican Orders, 481. 
Cutts, Dr., Turning Points of 
English History, 83. 
The Middle Ages, 475. 
Cyprian, St., Confirmation, 361. 
On Baptism, 364. 
Ep. ad Cornel., 544. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., on the 
Eucharist, 418, 429. 

Dalgairns, The Holy Commu- 
nion, 416, 439. 
Dawson, Sir J. W., Modern 
Science in Bible Lands, 95 
Didon, Life of Christ, 58. 
Dietlein, Evang., Ave Maria, 533. 
Doctrine of the Apostles, 365. 
Dollinger, The Reformation, 134. 

First Age of the Church, 291. 

Papal Fables, 294. 
Driscoll, God, 5. 

The Soul, 15. 
Dublin Review, Canon of the 
New Testament, 78. 

The Reformation, 134. 

Missions, 172. 



Dublin Review, Persecutions, 
222, 229, 231, 238. 
Cremation, 244. 
Liberius, 309. 
Honorius, 311. 
Galileo, 320. 

Eternal Punishment, 575. 
Duke, King, Prophet and Priest, 
114. 

Ecclesiastical Review, American, 
Coppens on Freemasonry, 
246. 

Record, Irish, 309. 
Eddy, Mrs., Science and Health, 
209. 

Ellicott, Bishop, Commentary, 
275- 

Elliott, Life of Christ, 48, 58. 

English Catholic Bishops, Vindi- 
cation of the Pope's Bull 
on Anglican Orders, 449. 

Epinois, H. de, l'Galilee, 315, 319. 

Epiphanius, St., Adv. Collyr., 

515. 524. 
Erasmus, Catechism of, 551. 
Estcourt, Anglican Ordinations, 

483. 

Faber, the Blessed Sacrament, 
416. 

Faith of Catholics, 280, 360, 368, 
371, 418, 446,453,514, 540, 
544, 550, 554, 563. 

Farrar, Canon, Eternal Hope, 
572. 

Flanagan, Canon, History of the 
Church in England, 223. 

Flint, Anti-theistic Theories, 6. 

Fouard, Life of Christ, 58. 

Fox, Religion and Morality, 3, 5. 

Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, 
3"- 

Freppel, Discourses on the Di- 
vinity of Christ, 59. 
Froude,.History of England, 237. 

Gagarin, The Russian Clergy, 
497- 

Gallwey, Lectures on Ritualism, 
483. 



Index of Authors. 



609 



Ganss, Mariolatry (Am. Cath. 

Quarterly), 526. 
Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the 

English Monasteries, 477. 
Gebler, Von, Galilee, 315, 317, 

319- 

Gerard, Condition of Catholics 
under James I., 222. 

Ghisleri, Almanacco dei Liberi 
Muratori, 243. 

Gibbons, Cardinal, Our Chris- 
tian Heritage, 5, 17. 336. 
The Faith of our Fathers, 

140, 220. 
The Ambassador of Christ, 
339. 

Gigot, Biblical Lectures, 78, 81, 
82, 85. 

Introduction to Holy Scrip- 
ture, 78, 80, 82. 

Green, History of the English 
People, 178, 481. 

Gregory the Great, On Title of 
Universal Bishop, 292. 

Gretser, The Monita Secreta, 
169. 

Guibert, Origin of Species, 93. 

Haddan and Stubbs, Ecclesias- 
tical Councils, 176. 

Hallam, Constitutional History 
of England, 222, 228, 230. 
Literature of Europe, 228. 

Hamard, Abbe, La Science et 
l'Apologetique Chretienne, 
94- 

Harlez, De, World's Parliament 
of Religions, 6. 

Hecker, I. T., Questions of the 
Soul, Aspirations of Na- 
ture, 121, 122, 329, 330. 

Hedley, Bishop, Our Divine Sa- 
viour and other Discourses, 
61 , 356. 

Hefele, History of the Councils, 
160. 

Cardinal Ximenes, 232. 
Hergenrother, Church and State, 
160, 200, 225, 238, 310, 326. 
An ti- J anus, 311. 



Hettinger, Revealed Religion, 17, 
34- 

The Days of Creation, 90. 
The Supremacy of the Apos- 
tolic See, 282, 311. 

Hewit, Eternal Punishment, 575. 

Heylin, History of the Reforma- 
tion, 466. 

Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 276. 

Hilton, Scale of Perfection, 339. 

Hodge, Svstematic Theology, 
366. 

Hummelauer, Von, Days of Crea- 
tion, 90. 

Humphrey, The One Mediator, 

347. 453- 
Hunter, Outlines of Theology, 

347- 

Huss, John,- Opera, 551. 
Hutton, Anglican Orders, 483. 
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, 2. 
Huylenbrowcq, The Monita Se- 
creta, 169. 

Ignatius, St., Martyr, Ad Trail., 
544- 

Innocent III., On Conscience, 
130. 

Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Pope 
Liberius, 309. 

Janssens, History of the German 

People, 508. 
Jardine, Torture in England, 230. 
Jaugey, Diet. Apol.,45, 319. 535. 
Jerome, St., Letter to Marcella, 

259- 
Epis., 467. 
Contra Jov., 492. 
Contra Vigilantius, 553. 554. 
John of the Cross, St., Works, 

339- 

Jungmann, Church History, 160. 
Jurieu, LeVrai Systeme de l'Eg- 

lise, 143. 
Justin Martyr, St. Apologia, 255. 

Keane, Archbishop, Loyalty to 
Rome and Country (Am. 
Cath. Quarterly), 326. 



6io Index of 



Kempis, Thomas a, Following of 

Christ, 339, 557. 
Kenrick, The Primacy of the 

Apostolic See, 282. 
Eternal Punishment, 581. 
Kitto, Bibl. Encycl. on Baptism, 

3 6 7- 

Lacordaire, Conferences on Jesus 

Christ, 58. 
Lalemant, Spiritual Doctrine, 

339- 

Lambert, Notes on Ingersoll, 
60. 

Lambing, Sacramentals of the 

Church, 269. 
Lang, The Making of Religion, 3. 
Lardner, Hist, of the Apostles 

and Evang., 275. 
Laserre, H., Miracles of Lourdes, 

546. 

Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, 
223. 

History of European Morals, 
524- 

Leo XIII., Encyclical on the 
Hible. 88. 
On the Condition of Labor, 
267. 

The Christian State, 323. 
Bull on Anglican Orders, 482. 
On Marriage, 4^6, 504. 
Lepicier, Indulgences, 406, 558. 
Liddon, The Diviniry of Our 
Lord, 50 et seq. 
So ne Elements of Religion, 
5- 

Lilly, W. S , on Persecution 
(in Dublin Review), 222. 

Lingard, History of England, 
235. 

Antiquities of Anglo-Saxon 

Church, 546. 
Littledale, The Jesuits, Encyc. 

Brit., 165. 
Livius, The Blessed Virgin in 

the Fathers, 140, 516, 525, 

533- 544- 
St. Peter, Bishop of Rome, 
274, 275, 276, 281, 291. 
Lodge, Life of Richelieu, 240. 



Authors, 



Loisy, Histoire du Canon de 
Nouveau Testament, 78. 
l'Histoire du Canon de l'An- 
cien Testament, 78. 

Lombard, Peter, Sentences, 351. 

Loughnan, Wm., The Hugue- 
nots, 238. 

Lubbock, Origin of Civilization, 
5- 

Luther, 67, 72, 508, 518, 551. 
Lyons, Christianity and infalli- 
bility, 114, 304. 

Maas, Christ in Type and Pro- 
phecy, 56. 

Maconnique Revue, The Religion 
of Masons, 245. 

Maher, Psychology, 15. 

Maistre, De, Letters on the 
Spanish Inquisition, 231. 

Maitland, Dean, The Dark Ages, 
84, 149, 475, 490. 

Mallock, Is Life Worth Living? 
112, 117, 201, 567. 

Manning. Cardinal, Temporal 
Mission of the Holy Ghost, 

79- * • • , 

The Temporal Power of the 

Pope, 302. 
Story of the Vatican Coun- 

ciJ, 307. 
The Vatican Decrees, 326. 
Petri Privilegium, 311. 
The Eternal Priesthood, 399. 
Marshall, Christian Missions, 

172. 

McClintock and Strong, Encycl., 
367- 

McLaughlin, Is one Religion 

as Good as Another? 26. 
The Divine Plan of the 

Church, 114, 194. 
Meignan, Mgr., Le Monde et 

1' Homme primitif, 91. 
Meric, L'Autre Vie, 575. 
Meurin, L., S.J , Holy Images, 

552. 

Milner, The End of Controversy, 

223, 446. 
Mohlei, ^vmbolism, 103, 114, 122, 

3 2 7» 329. 330» 565. 587. 



Index of Authors. 



611 



Moigno, Abb£, Splendeurs de la 
Foi, 93. 

Molloy, G., Geology and Revela- 
tion, 91, 142. 

Month, The, Cremation, 244. 
Relics of the True Cross, 
557- 

Moran, Cardinal, Persecutions in 
Ireland, 222, 229. 

More, Blessed Thomas, Dia- 
logues, 83. 

Mullen, r., Canon of the Old 
Testament, 78. 

Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, 
222. 

Napoleon, Jerome, Napoleon and 

his Detractors, 506. 
Neale, History of the Puritans, 

223, 226. * 
Newman, Grammar of Assent, 5. 
Essay on Miracles, 45, 557. 
Apologia, 117. 
Essay on Development, 114, 
139. . 

Historical Sketches, 191. 
Difficulties of Anglicans, 146, 

311, 516, 523, 531, 533. 
Letter to Duke of Norfolk, 

326. 

Present Position of Catholics, 
410. 

Nicolas, The Divinity of Christ, 
59. 

The Virgin Mary, 516. 
Nineteenth Century Magazine, 

Missions, 172. 
North cote, Mary in the Gospels, 

516. 

The Roman Catacombs, 563. 

O'Brien, History of the Mass, 

453. 457- 
Origen, Periarchon, in. 
Oxenham, the Atonement, 62, 

*39- 

Eschatology, 574"5- 

Palmer, The Church, 72, 96. 
Parsons, Studies in Church His- 
tory, 238, 507. 



Pastor, History of the Popes, 

296, 298. 
Pearson, Minor Theological 

Works, 275. 
Pennachi, Honorii Causa, 311. 
Petilalot, The Virgin Mother, 516. 
Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma 

of Freemasonry, 246. 
Pius VI., On the Bible, 87. 

VII., Letter to English 

Vicars-Apostolic, 88. 
IX., On Reason, 122. 
Salvation and the Church, 198. 
On the Deposing Power, 320. 
On Immaculate Conception, 
531. 
Plato, 566. 

Proctor, Knowledge, 316. 

J., Savonarola and the Refor- 
mation, 135. 

Quarterly, Am. Cath., Moral and 
physical evil, 12. 

Immortality of the soul, 15. 

Age of the human race, 94. 

The Jesuits, 165. 

Spiritism, 208. 

The Inquisition. 231. 

Persecutions, 238, 241. 

Freemasonry in Latin Ameri- 
ca, 248. 

The Laws of the Church and 
Secret Societies, 248. 

Catholic Free Schools, 252. 

Alexander VI., 293. 

Popes and the Western 
Schism, 298. 

Temporal Power of the 
Popes, 302. 

Infallibility of the Pope, 305. 

Pope Liberius and the Arian 
Creed, 309. 

Popes and the Jesuits, 320. 

Prayer, 336. 

Was St. Paul Married ? 492. 
The Blessed Virgin, 527. 
Miracles, 546. 

Church Review, On the 
Bible, 84. 
Quatrefages, The Human Spe- 
cies, 3. 



612 



Index of Authors. 



Ricards, Bishop, Catholic Chris- 
tianity and Modern Unbe- 
lief, 35, 159. 

Rickaby, Persecution, 220. 

Rivington, Authority-Depend- 
ence, 281, 309. 
The Primitive Church, and 
the See of Peter, 281. 

Robertson, Biblical Researches 
in Palestine, 364. 

Rock, Hierurgia, 269, 453. 

Romanes, Nineteenth Century, 3. 

Ronayne, God Knowable and 
Unknown, 5. 
Religion and Science, 142. 

Rousseau, Works, 13. 
Letters, 228. 

Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, 
521. 

Fors Clavigera, 525. 

Ryder, Catholic Controversy, 
292, 311. 

Rye, England in the Days of 
Elizabeth, 230. 

Ryle, Bishop, Divisions on Doc- 
trine, 441. 

Rymer, Fcedera, 175. 

Sacred Heart Review, Marriage 

of near Relations. 505. 
Schanz, A Christian Apology, 5, 

17, 41, 80, 114, 159, 304. 
Galileo, 320. 
Shah an, The Blessed Virgin in 

the Catacombs, 525. 
Sheahan, J. F., Vain Repetitions, 

342. 

Shedd, Eternal Punishment, 575. 
Smith, Sydney, S. J., Spanish In- 
quisition, 232. 
Papal Supremacy, 282. 
Doctrine of Intention, 349. 
Anglican Orders, 483. 
and Wace, Dictionary of 
Christian Biography, 309. 
Sozomen, History, 309. 
Spalding, Bishop, Essays, 159. 
Sparks, Life of Washington, 
326. 

Speakers' Commentary, 275. | 



Stephen, Sir James, History of* 
English Criminal Law, 229, 
231. 

Stone, Life of Mary Tudor, 241. 
Stubbs, Constitutional Hist., 
175-6. 

Tanquery, Synopsis Theol. Dog., 
174. 318. 

Taylor, Canon, Protestant Mis- 
sions (Fortnightly Review), 
172. 

Teresa, St., Autobiography, 339. 
Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, 219. 

Ad Uxorem, 447. 

De Corona Militum, 259, 563. 

De Prcescrip., 352, 479. 
Theiner, Annales, 235. 
Thomas, St., On Faith and Rea- 

* son, 35. 

On Creation, 90. 

On Conscience, 130. 

On Unbaptized Infants. 359. 
Thompson, Monatesseron, 282. 
Thurston, The Holy Year, 406, 
415. 

The Walled-up Nun, 477. 
Tyler, Primitive Culture, 3, 6. 
Tyrrell, George, S.J., External 
Religion, 168, 346. 

Upham, Salem Witchcraft, 230. 

Vaughan, J. S., Immortality of 
the Soul, 15. 
Faith and Folly, 34, 159. 
Thoughts for all Times, 436, 
440. 

J. B., Science and Religion, 
142. 

Verres, J., Luther, 68, 78, 87, 
164, 508. 

Vigouroux, Diction, de la Bible, 
78. 

Manuel Biblique, 91, 93, 95. 
Les Livres de Saints, 93, 95. 
Vincent of Lerins, 138. 

Wace and Smith, Dictionary of 
Christian Biography, 309. 



Index of Authors. 



613 



Ward, Wilfrid, Witnesses to the 
Unseen, 5. 
The Wish to Believe, 33. 
Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, 
280, 360, 368. 379, 386, 418, 

446, 4S3» 5i4» 540. 544. 553. 
563. 

Westcott, 526. 

Whiston, Memoirs, 275. 

Wieser, J., Spiritism and Chris- 
tianity, 207. 

Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of 
Catholic Theology, 62, 63, 
347, 348, 379, 4i8, 453, 
536. 



Wiseman, Cardinal, Science and 
Revealed Religion, 142. 
Lectures on Catholic Doc- 
trines, 81, 98, 416, 420-436. 
Lectures on Real Presence, 
416, 420, 436. 
World, Catholic, 320. 

York-Wendt Controversy, 225. 

Young, Alfred, Catholic and 
Protestant Countries Com- 
pared, 159. 

Zahm, Antiquity of Man (Am. 
Cath Quarterly), 94. 
Bible, Science and Faith, 142. 



s 



347 7 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)778-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




00173174147 • 



